Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Lynn SANDERS Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-24
Citations: 693 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 16-4507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Lynn SANDERS Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and’ BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gary Lynn SANDERS Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-4507
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2017
Filed: July 24, 2017
Cameron C. McCree, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Edward O. Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Gary Lynn Sanders, Pro Se
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and’ BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Gary Sanders challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug charges, pursuant to a written plea agreement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the issue that the government breached the plea agreement by not agreeing to a sentence below the statutory minimum, and therefore invalidated the appeal waiver; and that the sentence was unreasonable.
We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that the government did not breach the plea agreement, as it did not promise to move for a sentence below the statutory minimum, see United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 615, 617 (8th Cir. 1994); Sanders entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 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 outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion, and we dismiss this appeal.
. The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.