Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02729/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02729-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathon Tessmer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

2

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2729

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Jonathon Tessmer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 18, 2010

Filed: April 22, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Jonathon Tessmer pleaded guilty to committing a bank robbery, the

district court2

 sentenced him to 72 months in prison and three years of supervised

release. On appeal, Tessmer’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the propriety of two

special conditions of supervised release.

Appellate Case: 09-2729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Entry ID: 3657264
-2-

Tessmer pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a

waiver of his right to appeal all sentencing issues. We will enforce the appeal waiver

in this case. 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). Tessmer’s argument on

appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and the record shows the requisite

knowledge and voluntariness. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72

(8th Cir. 1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing and

voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant and circumstances

surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and voluntariness of waiver).

Further, enforcing the appeal waiver would not constitute a miscarriage of justice,

because there is no indication that the contested release conditions were linked to any

unconstitutionally impermissible factor. See United States v. Blue Coat, 340 F.3d

539, 542 (8th Cir. 2003) (supervised release conditions do not fall within miscarriageof-justice exception unless based on constitutionally impermissible factor).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we find none.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2010 Entry ID: 3657264