Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03815/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03815-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dustin Thomas Swanda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3815

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dustin Thomas Swanda, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 22, 2010

Filed: July 28, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal,

Dustin Swanda pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of 50 grams of

actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.

The district court1

 sentenced Swanda to 151 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a

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

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 09-3815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 Entry ID: 3687662
We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Swanda’s appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of

justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (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 question defendant

properly about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); see also

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

(enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 09-3815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2010 Entry ID: 3687662