Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Billy B. GARRISON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-15
Citations: 517 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 12-3984
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Billy B. GARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Billy B. GARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-3984.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 02, 2013.
Filed: July 15, 2013.
Daniel O. Herrington, White Goss Bowers March Schulte & Weisenfels, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Billy B. Garrison, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Bruce A. Rhoades, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Billy Garrison pleaded guilty to drug, firearm, and money-laundering charges. The district court imposed a total sentence of 240 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release, in accordance with a Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. On appeal, Garrison's counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Garrison has filed a pro se brief raising various challenges to his sentence.
Garrison's plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which we will enforce, because the record shows that Garrison knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice will result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc).
Although Garrison purports to raise a claim of prosecutorial misconduct which would fall outside the scope of the waiver, he has not explained how his allegations that the prosecutor made misrepresentations to the court had any effect on his sentence, which was the only sentence the court could impose after accepting the agreement. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(C). To the extent Garrison raises ineffective-assistance claims that would fall outside of the scope of the waiver, we decline to consider them on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir.2007).
After reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and enforce the appeal waiver by dismissing the appeal.
. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.