Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01761/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01761-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adam Kaminski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

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

District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1761

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Adam Kaminski, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 26, 2010

Filed: February 5, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adam Kaminski challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344

and 1349, and to illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). His

counsel seeks leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, counsel questions the district court’s application of a

16-level enhancement for Kaminski’s deportation following his felony conviction for

robbery, see U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), and the sufficiency of the evidence

Appellate Case: 09-1761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2010 Entry ID: 3631693
-2-

supporting the determination of his victims’ losses. Kaminski has filed a

supplemental brief also challenging the court’s application of the 16-level

enhancement.

We will dismiss this appeal. The written plea agreement contains an appeal

waiver, and we conclude that the appeal waiver should be enforced because (1) the

transcript of the plea hearing shows that Kaminski’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and

entered with full knowledge of the appeal waiver; (2) the waiver covers the arguments

raised on appeal; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not cause a miscarriage of

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

(enforceability of appeal waiver); see also 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,

80 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s judgment, and, subject to counsel's obligation to advise Kaminski

on the procedures for filing motions for rehearing and for certiorari, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2010 Entry ID: 3631693