1The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, late a United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-4107

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western 

Chris A. Naylor, also known as * District of Missouri

Alan Naylor, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 23, 2001

 Filed: March 6, 2001

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chris A. Naylor appeals the sentence of 107 months imprisonment and four years

supervised release imposed on him by the district court1 following his guilty plea to

conspiring to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B),

and 846. On appeal, counsel moved to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
-2-

U.S. 738 (1967), filing a brief in which he raises two sentencing issues. Mr. Naylor

raises the same issues in a pro se supplemental brief.

As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Naylor waived the right to appeal his sentence

on any ground except for an upward departure, a sentence in excess of the statutory

maximum, or a sentence in violation of law apart from the Guidelines. We conclude

that this waiver was knowing and voluntary. Among other things, at the time of his

plea hearing, Mr. Naylor was 36 years old, had a ninth-grade education, and could read

and understand English; he was assisted by counsel at the relevant hearing; and he

expressly does not seek to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Michelsen, 141

F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir.) (examining defendant’s personal characteristics and

circumstances surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and

voluntariness of waiver), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 942 (1998). 

Mr. Naylor contends that the government breached the plea agreement by

arguing for a four-level aggravating-role sentencing enhancement, an enhancement that

had been recommended in the presentence report and was ultimately assessed by the

district court. The plea agreement, however, preserved the government’s right to argue

“any position it deem[ed] appropriate regarding the sentencing calculations.” Based

on this and other plea agreement provisions, we cannot say that the government

breached the agreement or that Mr. Naylor’s sentence conflicts with it. See United

States v. Greger, 98 F.3d 1080, 1081 (8th Cir. 1996) (so long as sentence does not

conflict with negotiated agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal

sentence will be enforced).

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

75 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, because

Naylor’s sentence was not an upward departure, a sentence in excess of the statutory

maximum, or a sentence in violation of law apart from the Guidelines, we now

specifically enforce his promise not to appeal by dismissing this appeal. See United
-3-

States v. Williams, 160 F.3d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.