United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2479

___________________________

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Abdul Ahmed Asalati

 Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 18-2482

___________________________

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Abdul Ahmed Asalati

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeals from United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________
-2-

Submitted: March 25, 2019

Filed: March 28, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

While on supervised release, Abdul Asalati pleaded guilty to conspiring to 

distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and possessing a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). As part of his 

plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal unless, as relevant here, his sentence 

exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court1 imposed a total sentence of 

230 months in prison, which included 170 months on the drug-distribution count and 

60 months on the firearm-possession count. Neither sentence exceeded the statutory 

maximum. See id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). 

In a separate proceeding, the district court revoked Asalati’s supervised 

release and sentenced him to a 24-month prison term. The court ordered the 

sentences to run consecutively, which resulted in a total prison sentence of 254 

months. In an Anders brief, Asalati’s counsel raises the enforceability of the appeal 

waiver and the substantive reasonableness of the sentences, especially when viewed 

together, as potential issues on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). Counsel also seeks permission to withdraw. Id.

We review the validity and applicability of the appeal waiver de novo. See

United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we 

 

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western 

District of Missouri.
-3-

conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to Asalati’s 

challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his 230-month sentence. See United 

States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an 

appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the 

defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, 

and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice).

The appeal waiver, by its terms, does not cover Asalati’s 24-month sentence

for violating the conditions of supervised release, but we nevertheless conclude that 

the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 

455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing 

decisions); United States v. Calloway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that 

a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). We further

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the 

sentences to run consecutively. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n.4(C) (recommending 

that a revocation sentence and a sentence for a new offense “be imposed 

consecutively”). 

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75 (1988), and have not identified any other non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in No. 18-2482, 

affirm the judgment in No. 18-2479, and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________