Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01606/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01606-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Nicholas Gikas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1606

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Matthew Nicholas Gikas

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: October 26, 2015

 Filed: October 29, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Gikas directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after 1

he pleaded guilty to making and subscribing a false tax return. His counsel has

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the 1

District of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 15-1606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Entry ID: 4331386 
moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Gikas has submitted a pro se

brief in which he argues that his sentence was disproportionate to that of his codefendants and that prosecutors lied to the Grand Jury and prosecuted him for

impermissible reasons. We conclude that Gikas’s appeal waiver should be enforced

and prevents consideration of his claims. 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, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should

enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea

agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result). Having independently reviewed the record

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Entry ID: 4331386