Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03080/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03080-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Orville Myers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3080

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Christopher Orville Myers, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 30, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Myers (Myers) appeals his conviction and the 28-month prison

sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he pled guilty to mailing threatening

communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876. Myers’s counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Myers entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal,

with limited exceptions. We conclude the waiver is valid, because the record shows

Appellate Case: 05-3080 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2007 Entry ID: 3272821
-2-

Myers entered into both the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly and

voluntarily. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (concluding this court will enforce an appeal waiver contained in plea

agreement when “both the waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly

and voluntarily”). To the extent Myers argues his counsel was ineffective, we see no

reason to depart from this court’s usual rule of requiring ineffective-assistance claims

to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, where a proper record can be developed.

See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating

this court “will consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal only where the

record has been fully developed, where not to act would amount to a plain miscarriage

of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily apparent”).

Having determined Myers entered into both the plea agreement and appeal

waiver knowingly and voluntarily, we conclude the waiver bars the arguments raised

by Myers and his counsel. In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance

with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues that

fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We conclude no miscarriage of justice

would result from enforcing the waiver in this appeal. Cf. Andis, 333 F.3d at 890

(explaining the court will not enforce a valid plea waiver where to do so would result

in miscarriage of justice). Thus, we specifically enforce the appeal waiver by

dismissing this appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny

Myers’s pending motions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3080 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2007 Entry ID: 3272821