Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02178/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02178-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bennie Billups
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2178

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Bennie Billups, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 14, 2008

 Filed: February 4, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bennie Billups seeks to appeal the 70-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Billups’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting that the sentence is

unreasonable, but acknowledging that Billups’s plea agreement contained an appeal

waiver. In a pro se supplemental brief, Billups indicates that his counsel was

Appellate Case: 07-2178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398425
-2-

ineffective, and asserts that he has no recollection of signing an appeal waiver. He has

also moved to proceed pro se on appeal. 

We note that ineffective-assistance claims are more properly brought in

proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Cook, 356 F.3d 913, 919-

20 (8th Cir. 2004). Despite Billups’s assertion, we conclude upon reviewing the

record that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into his plea agreement and appeal

waiver; and we further conclude that this appeal falls within the scope of the broad

appeal waiver, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of

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

(conditions for enforcing appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d

1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). 

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

80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the

waiver. Therefore, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, contingent on counsel satisfying his obligations

under Part V of this court’s plan to implement the Criminal Justice Act. We deny

Billups’s motion as moot.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2008 Entry ID: 3398425