Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03089/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Siro Perez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3089

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Juan Siro Perez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 30, 2005

Filed: October 25, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juan Perez challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed

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

Perez pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement; to resolve their

sentencing disputes, the parties later agreed that Perez would receive a sentence of

235 months imprisonment, and that he would waive his right to appeal that sentence.

Appellate Case: 04-3089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2005 Entry ID: 1967011
-2-

We enforce this appeal waiver, because no miscarriage of justice would result: the

district court discussed the appeal waiver with Perez in open court, and Perez assured

the court that he had discussed the matter with his attorney and that it was his

decision alone; his appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and Perez’s sentence

is consistent with the parties’ stipulation. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-91 (8th Cir.) (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), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). 

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

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

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

withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2005 Entry ID: 1967011