Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis HEREDIA Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-13
Citations: 701 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 17-1839
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis HEREDIA Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 701
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis HEREDIA Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1839
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 7, 2017
Filed: November 13, 2017
David D. Hagler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jose Luis Heredia, Pro Se
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jose Heredia directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal in light of the appeal waiver. Counsel also has moved for leave to withdraw. Heredia has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the district court either lacked jurisdiction or committed a sentencing error. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
We conclude that Heredia's jurisdictional argument is meritless. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 ("The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States."). As to his sentencing-error argument, we conclude that the waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing requirements for enforcing appeal waivers). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government's motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.