Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01302/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01302-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Sauz-Flores
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1302

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Alfredo Sauz-Flores, also known as *

Alfredo Sauz, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 19, 2010

Filed: August 24, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement,

which contained an appeal waiver, Alfredo Sauz-Flores pleaded guilty to conspiracy

to distribute methamphetamine in an amount greater than 50 grams, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court1

 sentenced him to 360

months in prison--in accord with the plea agreement--and 10 years of supervised

Appellate Case: 10-1302 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696458
-2-

release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case, because the record shows the

requisite knowledge and voluntariness, the appeal is within the scope of the waiver,

and no injustice would result from enforcing the waiver. 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. Sisco, 576

F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir. 2009) (enforcing appeal waiver and finding no miscarriage of

justice in appeal challenging sentence as unreasonable because sentence did not

exceed statutory maximum); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071

(8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

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: 10-1302 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696458