Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02819/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02819-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Patrick Crespo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2819

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Marco Patrick Crespo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 10, 2010

 Filed: March 16, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Marco Crespo challenges the 37-month sentence

the District Court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense.

Crespo’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the existence of an appeal waiver in

Crespo’s written plea agreement, but nevertheless arguing that Crespo’s sentence is

substantively unreasonable.

Appellate Case: 09-2819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Entry ID: 3644785
-2-

Upon careful review, we conclude that enforcement of the appeal waiver is

warranted because Crespo’s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, Crespo

knowingly and voluntarily entered into both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver,

and enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice given that

Crespo received a sentence well below the correctly calculated Guidelines range and

his mitigating circumstances are not extraordinary. See United States v. Andis, 333

F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (holding that enforcement of an appeal waiver

in a plea agreement is appropriate where the appeal falls within the scope of the

waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into both the plea agreement and

the waiver, and enforcement of the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of

justice), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena,

201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal in an Anders

case based on an enforceable appeal waiver). 

Furthermore, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issue beyond the scope

of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we

dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010 Entry ID: 3644785