Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Feliciano LOPEZ-CASTILLO Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-12
Citations: 705 F. App'x 484
Docket Number: No. 17-2105
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Feliciano LOPEZ-CASTILLO Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 705
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Feliciano LOPEZ-CASTILLO Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-2105
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: December 7, 2017
Filed: December 12, 2017
Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Feliciano Lopez-Castillo, Pro Se
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Feliciano Lopez-Castillo directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense. His counsel moves for leave to withdraw, and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The government has filed a motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.
Counsel challenges the calculation of Lopez-Castillo's Guidelines imprisonment range, but concedes that the appeal waiver is applicable and enforceable. This court concludes that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). The record establishes that Lopez-Castillo entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, that the arguments on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver, and that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). An independent review of the record reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).
The appeal is dismissed.-Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Court Judge for the District of Minnesota.