Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01112/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01112-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Jermaine Gunn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1112

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Timothy Jermaine Gunn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 20, 2010

Filed: July 28, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Timothy Gunn challenges the sentence the district

court1

 imposed following his guilty plea to knowingly and intentionally conspiring to

distribute at least 50 grams of a mixture containing cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw

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

a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the court should have held a hearing to

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 10-1112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 Entry ID: 3687645
evaluate his competency, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that the district court

improperly denied his motion to withdraw his plea.

We conclude that the issues raised in the direct appeal fall within the scope of

the appeal waiver that Gunn entered into knowingly and voluntarily and that

enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United

States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc).2

Finally, having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal

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

______________________________

2

The issues raised by Gunn’s pro se supplemental brief are more properly the

subject of a proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and thus we do not

address them at this time.

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-1112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 Entry ID: 3687645