Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02882/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02882-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elliott M. Sumlin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2882

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Elliott M. Sumlin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 1, 2006

Filed: August 3, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Elliott M. Sumlin appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. His counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court abused

its discretion by imposing a 135-month sentence and plainly erred under United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by applying the Guidelines as mandatory.

Appellate Case: 04-2882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2006 Entry ID: 2074259
-2-

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Sumlin’s plea agreement: the

plea colloquy reflects that Sumlin understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of

the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver; and no injustice would result. United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92

(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). The waiver also covered any issues under Booker. See

United States v. Fogg, 409 F.3d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 2005) (unless expressly reserved,

right to appellate relief under Booker is among rights waived by valid appeal waiver,

even if parties did not anticipate Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), or

Booker).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2006 Entry ID: 2074259