Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03015/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clyde Barrett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3015

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Clyde Barrett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2005

Filed: May 24, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clyde Barrett challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1

 upon his

guilty plea to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute and possessing a

firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. The district court sentenced Barrett

to 5 years imprisonment on the drug count, a consecutive 5-year term of

imprisonment on the firearm count, and concurrent terms of 5 years supervised

release. His counsel has filed a brief and moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v.

Appellate Case: 04-3015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906360
-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Barrett has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Barrett pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of

the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues. We enforce this appeal waiver,

because it was made knowingly, and no miscarriage of justice would result. Barrett

indicated that his plea was voluntary and knowing, and the district court also

discussed the appeal waiver with Barrett at the plea hearing. This appeal falls within

the scope of the waiver; and Barrett’s sentence was mandated by statute and is

consistent with the plea agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91

(8th Cir.) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it

falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into

knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 997 (2003).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the

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

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906360