Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron Lawrence STORM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-10
Citations: 679 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 16-3305
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron Lawrence STORM, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 679
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron Lawrence STORM, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-3305
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2017
Filed: March 10, 2017
Craig Peyton Gaumer, Andrew H. Kahl, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Des Moines, IA, Anthony R. Mor-fitt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, Richard E. Rothrock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Council Bluffs, IA, Maureen McGuire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Aaron Lawrence Storm, Federal Correctional Institution, Sandstone, MN, for Defendant-Appellant
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Aaron Storm appeals after he pleaded guilty to child-pornography and attempted-kidnapping charges, under a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the District Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. At his sentencing hearing, Storm moved pro se to withdraw his guilty plea, and the court denied his motion. On appeal, Storm's counsel has moved for 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), challenging the denial of Storm's motion to withdraw his plea. Storm has not filed a pro se brief.
We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal, based in part on Storm's own statements at his change-of-plea hearing. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that a defendant's representations made during a plea hearing are presumed to be true).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion, and we dismiss this appeal.
. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.