Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02578/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Antonio Lenarr Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2578

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antonio Lenarr Williams

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

Submitted: December 4, 2024

Filed: December 9, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Williams appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy offenses

pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved

Appellate Case: 24-2578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2024 Entry ID: 5464109
to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the district court’s1 denial of his motion to suppress. 

Upon de novo review, we will enforce the appeal waiver. See United States

v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). The record shows

that Williams knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waiver;

the argument raised falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice

would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

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

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of

the waiver. We note, however, that the written judgment mistakenly states the 3-year

supervised release term imposed consists of concurrent 2-year terms on Counts 1 and

2. We modify the judgment to reflect that the 3-year supervised release term consists

of concurrent 3-year terms on Counts 1 and 2. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court

may modify any judgment of court brought before it for review); United States v.

Olson, 716 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir. 2013) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls

over written judgment). 

Accordingly, we modify the judgment, dismiss the appeal, and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Shirley P. Mensah, Chief Magistrate Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 24-2578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2024 Entry ID: 5464109