Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03753/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03753-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Carmona-Flores
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3753

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Pedro Carmona-Flores, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 2, 2010

Filed: June 11, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Pedro Carmona-Flores (Flores) challenges the

sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to an immigration

offense. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), and has moved to withdraw.

Flores pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a

waiver of his right to appeal “any aspect” of his case. We will enforce the appeal

Appellate Case: 09-3753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2010 Entry ID: 3673424
-2-

waiver here. 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). Flores’s argument on appeal

falls 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 United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d

867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from

knowing and voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant and

circumstances surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and

voluntariness of waiver).

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: 09-3753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2010 Entry ID: 3673424