Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01881/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01881-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vincent Rodgers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1881

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Vincent Rodgers, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 29, 2005

Filed: October 20, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Rodgers challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Rodgers

should have received a more lenient sentence. Rodgers seeks permission to file his

pro se supplemental brief out of time, and we grant him permission to do so.

Appellate Case: 04-1881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Entry ID: 1965396
-2-

Rodgers pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of

the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues. We enforce this appeal waiver.

Rodgers indicated that his plea was voluntary and knowing, and the district court

discussed the appeal waiver with Rodgers at the plea hearing; this appeal (including

the issues raised both in the Anders and supplemental briefs) falls within the scope of

the waiver; Rodgers’s sentence is consistent with the plea agreement, and no

miscarriage of justice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91

(8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Entry ID: 1965396