Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03962/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03962-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Charles Gutz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3962

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Robert Charles Gutz, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2010

Filed: July 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Robert Gutz pleaded guilty to possessing

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(B); and to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (c)(2). The district court1

 sentenced him to 180

months in prison, and Gutz appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); counsel has also filed a letter

pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) suggesting that we hold this

Appellate Case: 09-3962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686442
-2-

appeal in abeyance until the Supreme Court has decided two cases for which certiorari

has been granted.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the issues raised in the Anders brief fall

within the scope of a valid appeal waiver that was contained in Gutz’s plea agreement,

that Gutz knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the appeal

waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of

justice--even taking into consideration the cases pending before the Supreme Court.

See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(discussing enforceability of appeal waiver; appeal waivers are contractual agreements

between defendant and government that should not be easily voided by courts;

miscarriage of justice exception is narrow and will not be allowed to swallow general

rule that waivers of appellate rights are valid); see also United States v. EstradaBahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver

in Anders case).

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

appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Entry ID: 3686442