Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria Del Consuelo GARCIA Defendant-Appellant; United States of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adalit Morales Antonio, also known as Antonio Morales Adalit Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-19
Citations: 669 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 16-1094, No. 16-1501
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria Del Consuelo GARCIA Defendant-Appellant United States of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adalit Morales Antonio, also known as Antonio Morales Adalit Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 812–813

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria Del Consuelo GARCIA Defendant-Appellant United States of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adalit Morales Antonio, also known as Antonio Morales Adalit Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-1094, No. 16-1501
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: September 22, 2016
Filed: October 19, 2016
Craig Raymond Baune, Assistant U.S. Attorney, LeeAnn K. Bell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Maria Del Consuelo Garcia, Pro Se
Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated direct criminal appeals from judgments entered by the district court. Maria Garcia and Adalit Antonio were charged in the same indictment with participating in a drug conspiracy. They both pleaded guilty, pursuant to plea agreements containing appeal waivers, and the district court sentenced them to prison terms below the statutory minimum, based on safety-valve relief. Their attorneys have moved for leave to withdraw, and have filed briefs under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waivers, but challenging the reasonableness of the sentences. In addition, Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that her sentence is unfair.
We conclude that the appeal waivers are enforceable. 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). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant both attorneys leave to withdraw, and we dismiss these appeals.
. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.