Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01765/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01765-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
David E. Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1765

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

David E. Wilson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2007

 Filed: May 1, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David E. Wilson appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense. In a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his counsel raises issues related to excessiveness of

the sentence and ineffective assistance of counsel. In pro se submissions, Wilson also

asserts ineffective assistance, citing allegedly prejudicial errors arising from the use

of certain previous convictions for sentencing enhancements.

Appellate Case: 06-1765 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2007 Entry ID: 3304483
-2-

Wilson entered his guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement in which he waived

his right to bring a direct appeal, and his right to bring a habeas corpus challenge on

any ground other than prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel.

We will enforce the appeal waiver here. The record reflects that Wilson understood

and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver;

this 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); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena,

201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders

case). Having reviewed the record, we find no support for a contention that the

government breached the plea agreement. Claims based on ineffective assistance of

counsel may be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and

deny Wilson’s motion for new appointed counsel. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1765 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2007 Entry ID: 3304483