Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffery Lavelle STOVALL, also known as Mr. Moe, also known as Lil Moe, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-08
Citations: 211 F. App'x 540
Docket Number: No. 05-2254
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffery Lavelle STOVALL, also known as Mr. Moe, also known as Lil Moe, Appellant.
Judges: Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffery Lavelle STOVALL, also known as Mr. Moe, also known as Lil Moe, Appellant.
No. 05-2254.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 28, 2006.
Filed: Jan. 8, 2007.
Steven L. Schleicher, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.
Gary R. Bryant-Wolf, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
Jeffery Lavelle Stovall, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
[UNPUBLISHED]

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeffery Lavelle Stovall (Stovall) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and 2. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting Stovall's 132-month prison sentence is unfairly severe.
In his written plea agreement, Stovall expressly waived the right to appeal, directly or collaterally, any sentencing issue, except for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. At the plea hearing, Stovall acknowledged the plea agreement and confirmed the appeal waiver. We conclude the appeal waiver is valid, and we enforce it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way the district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question defendant about his decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); 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 under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.