Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonard RONDEAU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-22
Citations: 670 F. App'x 899
Docket Number: No. 16-2183
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonard RONDEAU, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 899–899

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leonard RONDEAU, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-2183
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Filed: November 22, 2016
Kevin Koliner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, Jay P. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Dakota, Pierre, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leonard Rondeau, Pro Se.
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Leonard G. Rondeau appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to engaging in sexual contact with a child. His counsel has 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). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.
Rondeau was sentenced to a term of 180 months in prison with 3 years of supervised release, to run'consecutively to sentences that he was already , serving in Nebraska state prison for other offenses. He argues that the federal sentence should run concurrently with the state sentences. Rondeau's appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless court orders that terms are to run concurrently); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (court may run state and federal sentences concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively in order to achieve reasonable punishment). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The appeal is dismissed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.