Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel PEINADO-JUAREZ, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-12
Citations: 250 F. App'x 758
Docket Number: No. 06-3255
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel PEINADO-JUAREZ, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 758–759

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel PEINADO-JUAREZ, Appellant.
No. 06-3255.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 4, 2007.
Filed: Oct. 12, 2007.
Bruce Wellesley Gillan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.
Manuel Peinado-Juarez, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Kevin E. Dellett, Olathe, KB, for Appellant.
Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Manuel Peinado-Juarez (Peinado-Juarez) appeals the 37-month prison sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to reentering the United States illegally after having been deported following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), his counsel argues (1) Peinado-Juarez's sentence was improperly calculated under the Guidelines, and (2) the sentence is too harsh. In a pro se supplemental brief, Peinado-Juarez argues the court improperly relied on his prior state drug sentence in determining his offense level and criminal history category because the sentence was imposed more than 15 years before his involvement in the instant offense.
We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Peinado-Juarez's plea agreement: the plea colloquy reflects that Peinado-Juarez understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), for any nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver, we find none. Accordingly, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.