Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03840/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03840-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott L. Grass
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Otrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3840

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Scott L. Grass, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2007

Filed: October 9, 2007 

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Scott L. Grass appeals the 235-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing more than 500 grams of

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. In a

brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Grass’s counsel seeks to

withdraw raising as a possible issue whether the sentence is unreasonable or violative

of the Eighth Amendment. 

Appellate Case: 06-3840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2007 Entry ID: 3359754
-2-

Grass pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver of his

right to appeal the sentence. We will enforce the appeal waiver here. The record

reflects that Grass understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea

agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-

92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); United

States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing

appeal waiver in Anders case). Even if his Eighth Amendment argument could be

deemed to fall within the appeal waiver’s exception for an “illegal sentence,” that

argument has no merit. See United States v. Atteberry, 447 F.3d 562, 565 (8th Cir.

2006) (Eighth Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly

disproportionate to crime; sentence within statutory limits is generally not subject to

Eighth Amendment review). 

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

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver, we find

none. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2007 Entry ID: 3359754