Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02493/USCOURTS-ca8-24-02493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Michael Clark
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2493

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Brian Michael Clark

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: January 2, 2025

Filed: January 8, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Brian Clark appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded

guilty to attempted enticement of a minor pursuant to a plea agreement that includes

1The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 24-2493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Entry ID: 5472957
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court procedurally erred

in applying a cross-reference to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1. Clark has filed a pro se brief,

asserting that this issue is not barred by the appeal waiver, and arguing in the

alternative that the waiver was neither knowing nor voluntary. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,

and applicable to the sentencing issue raised in this appeal. See United States v.

Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-

92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Contrary to Clark’s assertion, his challenge to the

sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, as the waiver encompassed a

misapplication of the Guidelines or the imposition of an unreasonable sentence. 

While Clark argues that the waiver was not entered into knowingly, the plea

agreement specified that the cross-reference may apply, and he was informed of the

potential penalties he faced during the plea hearing, as well as the fact that he was

waiving his appellate rights. Thus, we conclude that Clark knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72

(8th Cir. 1998); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997). Clark

also suggests the court deviated from the binding plea agreement, but the agreement

stated that the estimated Guidelines calculations were not binding on the court. See 

United States v. DeWitt, 366 F.3d 667, 669 (8th Cir. 2004). We also observe no

miscarriage of justice that would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States

v. D.B., 61 F.4th 608, 613 (8th Cir. 2023).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope

of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and

dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 24-2493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2025 Entry ID: 5472957