Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02033/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael A. Bryan
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2033

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Michael A. Bryan, also known as *

bigdog64085, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

bandit64085, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2008

Filed: March 26, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael A. Bryan appeals the sentence imposed on him by the district court1

after he pleaded guilty to a child-pornography charge, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(2). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Bryan’s counsel seeks to withdraw and questions whether the sentence – imposed at

the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range – is reasonable, and whether the district

Appellate Case: 07-2033 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2008 Entry ID: 3416772
2

Regardless of any appeal waiver, we decline to consider the ineffectiveassistance claim. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003)

(ineffective-assistance claims should ordinarily be brought in 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceeding because they normally involve facts outside original record). 

-2-

court erred by not allowing Bryan to self-surrender. Bryan has filed a supplemental

brief asserting that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal

proceeding, including at sentencing, and he also appears to deny the truth of

unobjected-to facts reported in the PSR.

Bryan’s written plea agreement contains a waiver of his right to appeal his

sentence, directly or collaterally. We find the appeal waiver to be valid and we

therefore enforce it. The plea-hearing transcript shows that Bryan entered into the

plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and we can perceive

no injustice that would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis,

333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcibility of appeal

waiver; United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per

curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). Thus, we do not review the

arguments raised in Bryan’s pro se supplemental brief or counsel’s argument that

Bryan’s sentence is unreasonable.2

 

To the extent that the issue of self-surrender is not covered by the appeal

waiver, we conclude that the district court did not err in ordering Bryan detained

following sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3143(b)(1), 3145(c). Finally, after

conducting an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), of

any matters not covered by the appeal waiver, we find that there are no nonfrivolous

issues. 

Accordingly, we affirm. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, subject to the

condition that counsel promptly comply with the requirements of Part V of this

Appellate Case: 07-2033 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2008 Entry ID: 3416772
-3-

Court’s Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act by advising his client of the

procedures for filing a petition for writ of certiorari pro se.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2033 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2008 Entry ID: 3416772