Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02238/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Graciela Toledo
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. 09-2238

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Graciela Toledo, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Esmeralda Moreno, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2010

Filed: April 7, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Graciela Toledo challenges the judgment and

sentence imposed by the district court1

 after she pleaded guilty to a drug offense. Her

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

U.S. 738 (1967).

Appellate Case: 09-2238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2010 Entry ID: 3652193
-2-

Toledo’s plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, and we will enforce it. 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). Toledo’s arguments on appeal fall within the

scope of the appeal waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and we see nothing to suggest that a miscarriage of justice would result

from enforcing the appeal waiver. See id. at 890-91 (“One important way a district

court can help ensure that a plea agreement and corresponding waiver are entered into

knowingly and voluntarily is to properly question a defendant about his or her

decision to enter that agreement and waive the right to appeal.”) Further, any

ineffective-assistance claim is not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal, see

United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006); and we find

nothing in the record to suggest the government breached the plea agreement.

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

U.S. 75 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we find none.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2010 Entry ID: 3652193