Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01952/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01952-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Eugene Winters
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1952

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Eugene Winters, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 11, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Winters appeals the 240-month prison sentence the district court*

imposed after Winters pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge. On appeal, counsel

has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the conviction, Winters

is prohibited from appealing his conviction because of the appeal waiver contained in

his plea agreement. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir.) (en

Appellate Case: 05-1952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043617
-2-

banc) (this court will enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where issue appealed

falls within scope of waiver, appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary, and no

miscarriage of justice would result), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003); United States

v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing

appeal waiver in Anders case). 

To the extent the Anders brief can be read to challenge the district court’s

imposition of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, Winters’s argument fails. See

United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (sole authority for

district court to depart from statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when government makes motion for substantial

assistance or defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief); United States v. Mendoza,

876 F.2d 639, 641 (8th Cir. 1989) (mandatory minimum sentencing does not violate

defendant’s constitutional rights).

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043617