Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04211/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chantry Hale
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4211

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Chantry Hale, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Filed: March 2, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Chantry Hale pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court1

 sentenced him to 92 months

in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Hale’s counsel has moved to

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

We enforce the appeal waiver included in Hale’s written plea agreement: the

plea colloquy reflects that Hale understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the

Appellate Case: 05-4211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284167
-2-

plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver;

and no injustice would result. 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); 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

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal

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

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2007 Entry ID: 3284167