Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02222/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Walter Tomasino-Zapata
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2222

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Walter Tomasino-Zapata, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 20, 2007

Filed: March 1, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter Tomasino-Zapata (Zapata) appeals the sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and to identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1028A. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Zapata has filed a supplemental brief.

Appellate Case: 06-2222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2007 Entry ID: 3283627
-2-

Zapata entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal.

We conclude that the waiver is valid, because the record shows that Zapata entered

into both the plea agreement and waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (this court will enforce

appeal waiver contained in plea agreement when “both the waiver and plea agreement

were entered into knowingly and voluntarily”). To the extent Zapata argues his

counsel was ineffective, we see no reason to depart from this court’s usual rule of

requiring ineffective-assistance claims to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

where a proper record can be developed. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez,

449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court “will consider ineffective-assistance

claims on direct appeal only where the record has been fully developed, where not to

act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily

apparent”).

Having determined that Zapata’s plea and appeal waiver were voluntary and

knowing, we conclude the waiver bars the arguments raised by Zapata and his

counsel. In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues that fall outside the scope

of the appeal waiver. We conclude that no miscarriage of justice would result from

enforcing the waiver in this appeal. Cf. Andis, 333 F.3d at 890 (court will not enforce

valid plea waiver where to do so would result in miscarriage of justice). Thus, we

specifically enforce the appeal waiver by dismissing this appeal. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2007 Entry ID: 3283627