Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04067/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher G. Rhodes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4067

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Christopher G. Rhodes, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2004

Filed: October 7, 2004 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Rhodes appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after

he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(A)(iii). The district court sentenced Rhodes to 294

months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. Counsel has moved to

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

noting an appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Rhodes did not file a pro se

supplemental brief by the court’s deadline, but has recently moved to file a

Appellate Case: 03-4067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2004 Entry ID: 1819507 
-2-

supplemental brief in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington,

124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).

In pleading guilty, Rhodes expressly waived the right to appeal “all nonjurisdictional issues,” except a departure from the Guidelines range. We enforce this

appeal waiver, concluding that no miscarriage of justice would result from such

enforcement because the district court properly questioned Rhodes at the plea

hearing; Rhodes indicated that his plea was voluntary; and the court explained the

waiver and received Rhodes’s assurance that he had discussed the plea agreement--

and specifically the appeal-waiver provision--with counsel, he had no questions, and

he agreed with it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.) (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

properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to

appeal), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 501 (2003).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and deny the motion to file a supplemental brief.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2004 Entry ID: 1819507