Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03783/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03783-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Stidum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3783

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

David Stidum, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2010

Filed: July 12, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, David Stidum pleaded guilty to a drug

offense, and the district court1

 sentenced him to 84 months in prison and 5 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). 

Stidum entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement that contains

a waiver of his right to appeal (1) all non-jurisdictional issues, and (2) all sentencing

Appellate Case: 09-3783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2010 Entry ID: 3682325
-2-

issues if the court sentenced him within the Sentencing Guidelines range resulting

from adopting the parties’ agreed-upon recommendations. We will enforce the appeal

waiver in this case, because the record shows that Stidum entered his plea voluntarily,

with full knowledge of and consent to the appeal waiver, and his sentence is within

the Guidelines range resulting from adoption of the parties’ recommendations. See

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability

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

2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). The district court’s

instruction to Stidum at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing that he had ten days

to appeal does not bar the enforceability of the appeal waiver. See United States v.

Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 774 (8th Cir. 2009). 

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 grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this

appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2010 Entry ID: 3682325