United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2615

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Froylan Pedroza-Guadarrama

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________

 Submitted: April 14, 2015

Filed: April 17, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Froylan Pedroza-Guadarrama directly appeals the sentence the district court1

imposed in his criminal case. Pedroza pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A), and 846. In the written plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his

sentence on any ground except for ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct,

or an illegal sentence. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), counsel argues that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity

attributable to Pedroza. In a pro se supplemental brief, Pedroza raises additional

arguments that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly litigate his

objection to the drug quantity, and that the district court erred in denying his request

for a minor-role reduction.

After careful review, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. See

United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review);

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal-waiver

rule). The drug-quantity and minor-role-reduction issues fall within the scope of the

waiver; Pedroza knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and

waiver, as the magistrate2

 reviewed both with Pedroza, who indicated that he had

reviewed the agreement with counsel, understood its terms, and voluntarily pleaded

guilty, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s

statements during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity); and enforcing the

waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice, see Andis, 333 F.3d at 891-92

(outlining narrow miscarriage-of-justice exception to appeal-waiver rule; allegation

that sentencing court misapplied Sentencing Guidelines or abused its sentencing

discretion is not subject to appeal in face of valid appeal waiver). Further, the record

is insufficiently developed to consider Pedroza’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct

appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (ineffectiveassistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, and this court

considers such claims on direct appeal only if record has been fully developed,

2

The Honorable Matt J. Whitworth, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
counsel’s error is readily apparent, or to not act would amount to plain miscarriage of

justice). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pedroza’s pro se motion to appoint new

counsel is denied. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, subject to counsel

informing appellant about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and for

filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

______________________________

-3-