Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02585/USCOURTS-ca8-19-02585-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacquell Lowe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2585

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jacquell Lowe

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck

 ____________

 Submitted: January 21, 2020

Filed: January 28, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jacquell Lowe appealsthe sentence the district court1imposed after he pleaded

guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. 

1The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Court Judge for the

District of North Dakota.

Appellate Case: 19-2585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2020 Entry ID: 4875183
His counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging whether the district court properly

considered the policy disagreements that exist among district courts regarding

methamphetamine sentencing guidelines and suggesting that the sentence is

unreasonable. Lowe has filed a supplemental brief asserting that counsel was

ineffective and reiterating the claim regarding policy disagreements.

We decline, at this time, to consider ineffective-assistance issues. See United

States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that ineffective-assistance

claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, and this court considers

such claims on direct appeal only if the record has been fully developed, counsel’s

error is readily apparent, or to not act would amount to plain miscarriage of justice). 

As to the remaining issues, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott,

627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (stating that this court reviews de novo the validity

and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92

(8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal

falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered

into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in

a miscarriage of justice).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the

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

and deny Lowe’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 19-2585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2020 Entry ID: 4875183