United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2649

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Annette K. Crawley, also known as Keny Sade Bryant, also known as Annette K.

Ligon, also known as Annette L. Bryant

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________

 Submitted: January 21, 2014

Filed: January 22, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Annette K. Crawley pled guilty to filing a false claim and health care fraud, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 1347. Her written plea agreement contained an

appeal waiver, in which she “knowingly and expressly waive[d] any and all rights to

appeal [her] conviction and sentence, . . . including review pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742 of any sentence imposed.” The district court varied downward from the

1

applicable Guidelines range and imposed concurrent 48-month prison sentences on

each count, 3 years of supervised release, and full payment of restitution. On appeal,

Crawley’s counsel moves to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which counsel notes that Crawley entered into an

appeal waiver, and argues that the sentence was unreasonable because the court did

not properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Crawley has filed a

supplemental brief, in which she argues that her sentence was procedurally and

substantively unreasonable, asit was disproportionately longer than the sentencesfor

other defendants convicted of engaging in similar conduct.

After careful de novo review, this court holds that the appeal waiver is valid

and shall be enforced. See United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2009)

(standard of review). Crawley’s challenge to her sentence falls within the scope of

her appeal waiver; the record reflects thatshe knowingly and voluntarily entered into

the waiver and the plea agreement, and she does not contend otherwise; and enforcing

the waiver does not result in a miscarriage of justice, as Crawley’s 48-month sentence

is within the statutory sentencing ranges for her offenses. See United States v. Andis,

333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if

appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered

waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver does not result in miscarriage of

justice; sentence imposed within statutory range is not miscarriage of justice, and

argument that court misapplied Guidelines or abused sentencing discretion is not

subject to appeal in face of valid appeal waiver). See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 1347.

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Nebraska.

-2-
This court reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), and found no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. The appeal is dismissed.

Allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the

Eighth Circuit’s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement The Criminal

Justice Act of 1964. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice to

counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment.

______________________________

-3-