Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03846/USCOURTS-ca8-08-03846-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Arlan Calvin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3846

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Jack Arlan Calvin, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 30, 2009

Filed: January 7, 2010

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Jack Calvin

pleaded guilty to securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R.

§ 240.10b-5. The district court1

 sentenced him to 200 months in prison and 3 years

of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $2,083,736.41 in restitution. On appeal,

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

U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel argues that the district court committed procedural error in

calculating the Guidelines range because it improperly applied a 2-level enhancement

Appellate Case: 08-3846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622057
-2-

for sophisticated means, and that the court abused its discretion because the 200-

month sentence was greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). Calvin has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising similar arguments.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Calvin knowingly and voluntarily

entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that the issues raised on appeal

fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would

not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-

92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating circumstances in which court will enforce appeal

waiver; noting miscarriage-of-justice exception is narrow and does not swallow

general rule that waivers of appellate rights are valid); 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 find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We grant defense

counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the

procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-3846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622057