Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02191/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Omar Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2191

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Omar Wilson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: January 21, 2020

Filed: January 27, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Omar Wilson appeals after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine

base, and the district court1

imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. Counsel has

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 19-2191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2020 Entry ID: 4874692
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in Wilson’s plea agreement, and

asserting that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to explain that the plea

agreement would prevent him from appealing the denial of an offense level reduction

for accepting responsibility, and that his sentence is unreasonable. 

To the extent Wilson intended to challenge the voluntariness of his plea, we

reject the claim. Wilson stated under oath at his plea hearing that he understood the

terms of the agreement, including the appeal waiver; he understood that the court was

not bound by the parties’ Guidelines stipulations (which included the stipulation

regarding acceptance of responsibility); he understood that a final determination

regarding the Guidelines calculation would be made by the district court; and he was

entering into the agreement voluntarily. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699,

703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong

presumption of verity). To the extent Wilson has raised ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims that require development of matters outside the record, this court

declines to address them in this direct appeal. See United States v.

Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance

claims are best litigated in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly

developed). As to the sentencing challenge, we enforce the appeal waiver. See

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

waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly

and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would

not result in miscarriage of justice).

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

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

waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to

withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-2191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2020 Entry ID: 4874692