United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4330

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Aamir A. Hafiz-Thompson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: February 7, 2018

Filed: February 9, 2018 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Aamir Hafiz-Thompson directly appeals the above-guidelines-range sentence

the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing a stolen firearm,

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved

for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, and questioning whether the district court

complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at the change-of-plea hearing and whether the

sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. In his pro se briefs, Hafiz

asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his plea was

unknowing or involuntary. 

To begin, we decline to consider Hafiz-Thompson’s ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d

824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated

in collateral proceedings, where record can be properly developed). Next, we

conclude that his assertion that his guilty plea was unknowing or involuntary is not

cognizable on direct appeal because he did not move in the district court to withdraw

his guilty plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010)

(claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal

where defendantfailed to move in district court to withdraw guilty plea). With regard

to counsel’s Rule 11 argument, we find no plain error. See United States v.

Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004) (standard of review).

As to counsel’s remaining arguments challenging the procedural and

substantive reasonableness of the sentence, we conclude that the appeal waiver is

valid and enforceable. In particular, we note that Hafiz-Thompson’s own statements

atthe change-of-plea hearing indicated that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into

the plea agreement and appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704

(8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver);

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing

enforcement of appeal waivers); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8thCir.

1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of

verity).

-2-
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope

of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel

leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-3-