Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael WALKER, also known as Big Mike, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-12
Citations: 554 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 13-2035
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael WALKER, also known as Big Mike, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 533–533

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael WALKER, also known as Big Mike, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-2035.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2014.
Filed: Feb. 12, 2014.
David R. Ferguson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, Matthew C. Quinn, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Files, Files & Brasuell, PLLC, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael Walker, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Walker appeals the 160-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing a cocaine base mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Counsel seeks leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Walker pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement in which he waived, among other things, his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. He reserved the right to appeal his sentence only if it exceeded the statutory maximum for his offense. After conducting careful de novo review of the record before us, see United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.2009), we conclude that Walker entered into the plea agreement and its appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (standard for enforcing appeal waiver). The exception to the waiver does not apply, because Walker's sentence was well below the statutory maximum. We will therefore enforce the appeal waiver in this appeal. Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion, and we dismiss the appeal.
. The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United 1 States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.