Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01597/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01597-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Roe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1597

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Mark Roe, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 21, 2010

Filed: February 4, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Mark Roe challenges the district court’s1

judgment entered upon his guilty plea to drug charges. His counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Roe’s plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, and we will enforce it. See

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should

enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both

Appellate Case: 09-1597 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631168
-2-

plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result). Roe’s arguments on appeal fall within the scope

of the appeal waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and

we see nothing to suggest that a miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the

appeal waiver. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998)

(appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and voluntary

decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant and circumstances

surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and voluntariness of waiver).

Further, any ineffective-assistance claim is not properly raised in this direct appeal.

See United States vs. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we find none.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1597 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2010 Entry ID: 3631168