Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vincent RODGERS, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-20
Citations: 146 F. App'x 79
Docket Number: No. 04-1881
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vincent RODGERS, Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vincent RODGERS, Appellant.
No. 04-1881.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2005.
Thomas Joseph Mehan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
Brian S. Witherspoon, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Vincent Rodgers, Lexington, KY, pro se.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Vincent Rodgers challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges. 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), arguing that Rodgers should have received a more lenient sentence. Rodgers seeks permission to file his pro se supplemental brief out of time, and we grant him permission to do so.
Rodgers pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues. We enforce this appeal waiver. Rodgers indicated that his plea was voluntary and knowing, and the district court discussed the appeal waiver with Rodgers at the plea hearing; this appeal (including the issues raised both in the Anders and supplemental briefs) falls within the scope of the waiver; Rodgers's sentence is consistent with the plea agreement, and no miscarriage of justice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.