Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-02183/USCOURTS-ca8-16-02183-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonard Rondeau
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2183

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leonard Rondeau

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Pierre

____________

 Submitted: November 17, 2016

Filed: November 22, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Leonard G. Rondeau appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after 1

he pled guilty to engaging in sexual contact with a child. His counsel has moved to

The HonorableRoberto A. Lange, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of South Dakota.

Appellate Case: 16-2183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Entry ID: 4471963 
withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.

Rondeau was sentenced to a term of 180 months in prison with 3 years of

supervised release, to run consecutively to sentences that he was already serving in

Nebraska state prison for other offenses. He argues that the federal sentence should

run concurrently with the state sentences. Rondeau’s appeal waiver should be

enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d

702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal

waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court

should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of

waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and

no miscarriage of justice would result); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (multiple terms

of imprisonment imposed at different timesrun consecutively unless court ordersthat

terms are to run concurrently); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (court may run state and federal

sentences concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively in order to achieve

reasonable punishment). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-2183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Entry ID: 4471963