Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02557/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02557-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Avelino Sanchez-Vargas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2557

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Avelino Sanchez-Vargas, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2007

Filed: July 10, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Avelino Sanchez-Vargas (Sanchez-Vargas) appeals the sentence the district

court1

 imposed following his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute 5 grams

or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

Sanchez-Vargas’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred by sentencing

Sanchez-Vargas to 120 months’ imprisonment. In a pro se submission to this court,

Sanchez-Vargas asks for a reduced sentence, and maintains that at sentencing, the

Appellate Case: 06-2557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2007 Entry ID: 3327900
-2-

district court reinstated his right to appeal. Sanchez-Vargas also appears to argue his

counsel was ineffective.

Initially, we note Sanchez-Vargas’s argument regarding counsel is not properly

before us in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068,

1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating an ineffective-assistance claim typically should be raised

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). As to the remaining arguments, we enforce the

broad appeal waiver included in Sanchez-Vargas’s plea agreement and dismiss this

appeal. The plea colloquy reflects Sanchez-Vargas understood and voluntarily

accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver; this 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 the enforceability of an

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

Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in an Anders case). The district

court’s advice at sentencing that Sanchez-Vargas had to file a notice of appeal within

ten days if he thought there was a basis to appeal does not affect the validity of the

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

(concluding a court’s statement at the sentencing hearing that the defendant had a right

to an appeal did not render the appeal waiver invalid, because the record otherwise

indicated the defendant understood he had waived his right to appeal).

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. We affirm Sanchez-Vargas’s sentence, dismiss the appeal, and grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2007 Entry ID: 3327900