Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. VINH XUAN NGO Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-06
Citations: 690 F. App'x 452
Docket Number: No. 16-3890
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. VINH XUAN NGO Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. VINH XUAN NGO Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-3890
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Filed: June 6, 2017
John Kokkinen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Vinh Xuan Ngo, Pro Se
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Vinh Xuan Ngo pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. The district court sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines range to 114 months in prison, and Ngo appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel argues that the sentence is unreasonable, and asks that this court consider whether the appeal waiver should be enforced in this case.
Having carefully considered the record, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and should be enforced. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review). At the plea hearing, the district court carefully and thoroughly questioned Ngo to ensure that he was entering into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); this appeal falls within the scope of the broadly worded appeal waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 76, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.
. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.