Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02887/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02887-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Markese Lamont Leonard
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2887

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Markese Lamont Leonard, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2005

Filed: November 4, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Markese Leonard challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to a drug charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The government has moved to

dismiss the appeal based on an appeal waiver in the parties’ written plea agreement.

We enforce the appeal waiver: at the guilty-plea hearing, the district court

discussed the waiver with Leonard in open court, and ensured that Leonard was

Appellate Case: 04-2887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2005 Entry ID: 1971369
-2-

pleading guilty voluntarily; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no

injustice would result, as Leonard’s sentence is consistent with the plea agreement.

See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 997 (2003). The waiver also covered any issues under United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Leonard’s attempt to avoid the appeal waiver by

arguing that his sentence is “illegal” is unavailing. See United States v. Reeves, 410

F.3d 1031, 1034 (8th Cir. 2005) (right to appeal under Booker is among rights waived

by broad appeal waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate Booker ruling), cert.

denied, 2005 WL 2494198 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2005); United States v. Burns, 409 F.3d 994,

996 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“illegal sentence” exception to rule that appeal

waivers are generally enforceable includes only sentences outside statutory range;

appeal waivers are still enforceable against Booker claims).

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

(1988), we have found no other nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2005 Entry ID: 1971369