Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04450/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04450-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elexis Clayborn
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. 05-4450

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Elexis Clayborn, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 3, 2007

Filed: October 4, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elexis Clayborn appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after she

pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeit securities and identity fraud. In a brief

filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), her counsel questions whether

the court erred in not imposing a more lenient sentence. In a pro se brief, Clayborn

asserts that her counsel was ineffective, that the district court erred in accepting the

plea agreement because she did not understand the nature of the charge, that the court

erred in accepting the presentence report (PSR) with no corrections, that the

Appellate Case: 05-4450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358902
-2-

calculations in the PSR were erroneous, and that the court erred in imposing

restitution.

Clayborn entered her guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement in which she

waived her right to bring a direct appeal, and her right to bring a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

challenge on any ground other than prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance

of counsel. We will enforce the appeal waiver here. The record reflects that Clayborn

understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the

appeal waiver; the direct 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. McIntosh, 492

F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir. 2007) (concluding appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary

when it was included in plea agreement, court questioned defendant about his

understanding of waiver, and defendant did not argue on appeal that waiver was

unknowing or involuntary). Claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel may

be raised in section 2255 proceedings. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068,

1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

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: 05-4450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358902