Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Corteze EDWARDS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-27
Citations: 352 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 06-2639
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Corteze EDWARDS, Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 352
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Corteze EDWARDS, Appellant.
No. 06-2639.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 22, 2009.
Filed: Oct. 27, 2009.
Steven E. Holtshouser, Michael A. Reilly, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
Travis L. Noble, Jr., Sindel & Sindel, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Corteze Edwards, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Corteze Edwards appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to an attempted-bank-robbery charge. 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 that although Edwards waived his right to appeal his sentence, it is possible that Edwards did not waive his rights knowingly and voluntarily, and that enforcement of the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice because Edwards was unjustly penalized in light of his minimal involvement in the incident.
In the plea agreement, the parties agreed that Edwards's sentencing range would be 292-365 months, which was below the applicable Guidelines range, and the parties waived their rights to appeal all sentencing issues if the court sentenced Edwards within the agreed-upon range. The court sentenced Edwards at the bottom of the range to 292 months in prison. We will enforce the appeal waiver here. The record reflects that Edwards understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver; the direct 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).
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 dismiss the appeal, grant counsel leave to withdraw, and deny Edwards's motion for new appellate counsel.
. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.