Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02214/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Parker Willingham
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2214

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Parker Willingham, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2010

Filed: February 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Parker

Willingham pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and to defraud the

United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the collection of tax revenue,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court1

 sentenced him to 41 months in

prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $31,650 in

restitution. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel argues that the district court erred

Appellate Case: 09-2214 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2010 Entry ID: 3637037
-2-

by using the attempted loss rather than the actual loss to enhance the base offense

level, that the sentence did not reflect Willingham’s limited participation in the

conspiracy, and that the sentence is inconsistent with sentences received by similarly

situated codefendants.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Willingham knowingly and voluntarily

entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that the issues raised on appeal

fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would

not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-

92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating circumstances in which court will enforce appeal

waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2214 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2010 Entry ID: 3637037