Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01089/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence Stuart Tuttle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1089

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Lawrence Stuart Tuttle, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 29, 2007

Filed: February 1, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence Tuttle appeals the 60-month prison sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after he pleaded guilty to using a means of identification of another person with

intent to commit the unauthorized use of an access device and by such conduct

obtaining more than $1,000 in value, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7), (b)(1)(D).

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

U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Tuttle’s sentence representing an upward

variance from the Guidelines range was reasonable.

Appellate Case: 06-1089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2007 Entry ID: 3274092
-2-

We conclude that this appeal falls within the scope of the broad appeal waiver

contained in Tuttle’s plea agreement and is not covered by the waiver’s exceptions

because the sentence did not exceed the 15-year statutory maximum and was not

illegal. Further, in response to the district court’s questioning, Tuttle unequivocally

expressed his understanding of the plea agreement and the waiver and affirmed that

he entered the plea agreement freely and voluntarily. Thus, 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 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); 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 issue falling outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2007 Entry ID: 3274092