Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03253/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Arthur Schmacker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3253

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Craig Arthur Schmacker, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2010

Filed: June 7, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal,

Craig Schmacker pleaded guilty to unlawfully distributing child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). The district court1

 sentenced

Schmacker to 188 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. On appeal,

his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence on various grounds, and arguing that

the appeal waiver should be set aside because the government violated the plea

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 09-3253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Entry ID: 3671656
agreement by agreeing with the presentence report that Schmacker should receive an

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(E).

In the plea agreement, Schmacker waived his right to appeal all issues related

to his plea agreement, his conviction, and his sentence, as long as the sentence was

within the maximum statutory penalties. The maximum prison term for Schmacker’s

offense is 240 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). We will enforce the appeal

waiver in this case, because the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the record

shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver

would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d

886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal waiver); United States

v. Sisco, 576 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir. 2009) (considerations for knowing and voluntary

waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). We reject Schmacker’s

argument that the government breached the plea agreement: the agreement explicitly

indicated that the parties had not agreed on the enhancement’s applicability, and that

the government could make whatever argument it deemed appropriate at sentencing. 

See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 2007) (plea agreements are

contractual in nature and should be interpreted according to general contract

principles).

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

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

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

appeal.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010 Entry ID: 3671656