Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Lance BAKER, also known as Pudge, also known as Steve Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-04
Citations: 704 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 17-1549
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Lance BAKER, also known as Pudge, also known as Steve Defendant-Appellant
Judges: ■Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen Lance BAKER, also known as Pudge, also known as Steve Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-1549
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: November 27, 2017
Filed: December 4, 2017
Kristin Huntington Bryant, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael S. Gordon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cameron C. McCree, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Stephen Lance Baker, Pro Se
■Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stephen Baker appeals from the sentence the District Court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug-related offense under a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
After review, 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 the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). 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 we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government's motion to dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw,
. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.