Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03852/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03852-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Mansfield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3852

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

William Mansfield, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 21, 2010

Filed: July 22, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal,

William Mansfield pleaded guilty to using interstate facilities in the commission of

murder-for-hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. The district court1

 sentenced

Mansfield to 120 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his

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

U.S. 738 (1967).

Appellate Case: 09-3852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 Entry ID: 3685970
-2-

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Mansfield’s appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of

justice. 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 question defendant

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

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 Entry ID: 3685970