Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02254/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02254-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffery Lavelle Stovall
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. 05-2254

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jeffery Lavelle Stovall, also known as * District of Minnesota.

Mr. Moe, also known as Lil Moe, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 28, 2006

Filed: January 8, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffery Lavelle Stovall (Stovall) appeals the sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pled guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1) and 2.

His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), asserting Stovall’s 132-month prison sentence is unfairly severe.

Appellate Case: 05-2254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2007 Entry ID: 3265566
-2-

In his written plea agreement, Stovall expressly waived the right to appeal,

directly or collaterally, any sentencing issue, except for a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. At the plea hearing, Stovall acknowledged the plea agreement

and confirmed the appeal waiver. We conclude the appeal waiver is valid, and we

enforce it. See 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 the district court can

ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly

question defendant about his decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal);

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 independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the

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

withdraw. 

____________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2007 Entry ID: 3265566