Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03403/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03403-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deron DeCarlos Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3403

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Deron Decarlos Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 28, 2005

Filed: November 3, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Deron Johnson appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Johnson executed a written plea agreement, in which he agreed to waive his

right to appeal or otherwise challenge the constitutionality or legality of the

Appellate Case: 04-3403 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2005 Entry ID: 1970944
-2-

Sentencing Guidelines, and expressly waived the right to appeal his sentence directly

or collaterally, on any ground except for an upward departure, a sentence in excess

of the statutory maximum, or an illegal sentence.

We enforce this appeal waiver: the district court conducted a proper Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy; Johnson testified under oath that his plea

was voluntary and knowing, and the district court discussed the appeal waiver with

him at the plea hearing; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no

injustice would result, as Johnson’s sentence is consistent with the plea agreement.

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, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). The waiver also covered any issues under United States

v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031,

1034-35 (8th Cir. 2005) (right to appeal under Booker is among rights waived by

broad appeal waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate Booker ruling), cert. denied,

(U.S. Oct. 11, 2005) (No. 05-6322).

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3403 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2005 Entry ID: 1970944