Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01094/USCOURTS-ca8-16-01094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria Del Consuelo Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1094

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Maria Del Consuelo Garcia

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 16-1501

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Adalit Morales Antonio, also known as Antonio Morales Adalit

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeals from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: September 22, 2016

Filed: October 19, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Appellate Case: 16-1094 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 Entry ID: 4460478 
Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

These are consolidated direct criminal appeals from judgments entered by the

district court. Maria Garcia and Adalit Antonio were charged in the same indictment

1

with participating in a drug conspiracy. They both pleaded guilty, pursuant to plea

agreements containing appeal waivers, and the district court sentenced themto prison

terms below the statutory minimum, based on safety-valve relief. Their attorneys

have moved for leave to withdraw, and have filed briefs under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waivers, but challenging the

reasonableness of the sentences. In addition, Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental

brief arguing that her sentence is unfair.

We conclude that the appeal waivers are enforceable. See United States v.

Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability

of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have

independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and

have found no non-frivolousissuesfor appeal. Accordingly, we grant both attorneys

leave to withdraw, and we dismiss these appeals.

______________________________

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1094 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016 Entry ID: 4460478