Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03776/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew M. Bradley
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. 04-3776

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Matthew M. Bradley, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: October 6, 2005

Filed: October 12, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew M. Bradley (Bradley) appeals following entry of judgment by the

district court1

 upon his guilty plea to possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2) (Count 1), and being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (Count 2). The district

court sentenced Bradley to concurrent terms of 120 months imprisonment and 3 years

supervised release on Count 1 (the statutory maximum), and 211 months

Appellate Case: 04-3776 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962123
-2-

imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release on Count 2. Bradley’s counsel now

moves to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Bradley to 211

months’ confinement. Bradley has filed a pro se motion in which he seeks

(1) permission to file a supplemental brief out of time in light of Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and (2) appointment of substitute counsel. In

his motion, Bradley maintains, among other things, the district court violated Blakely

and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

Bradley executed a written plea agreement in which he expressly waived (1)

his right to challenge the constitutionality of the federal Sentencing Guidelines, and

(2) his right to appeal, directly or collaterally, any sentencing issue which had been

stipulated to in the plea agreement. With respect to sentencing, the parties, in

relevant part, stipulated Bradley would be sentenced as an armed career criminal

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).

We enforce this appeal waiver, because no miscarriage of justice would result:

Bradley indicated his plea was voluntary and knowing, the district court properly

questioned Bradley about the decision to enter the agreement and to waive his right

to appeal the covered issues, counsel’s challenge to Bradley’s sentence falls within

the scope of the appeal waiver, and Bradley’s sentence is consistent with the plea

agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (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; one important way district

court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to

properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to

appeal); see also United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2005)

(unless expressly reserved, right to appellate relief under Booker is among rights

waived by valid appeal waiver; plea prior to Booker is not rendered involuntary or

Appellate Case: 04-3776 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962123
-3-

unintelligent simply because implications of holding were not known at time of plea),

petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Sept. 7, 2005) (No. 05-6322). 

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

Additionally, we deny Bradley’s motion to file a supplemental brief, because he

wishes to raise issues covered by the appeal waiver, and we also deny his request for

appointment of substitute counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3776 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/12/2005 Entry ID: 1962123