Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cuauthemoc SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Luis Picon Sanches, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-01
Citations: 511 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 13-1690
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cuauthemoc SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Luis Picon Sanches, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cuauthemoc SANCHEZ-LOPEZ, also known as Luis Picon Sanches, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-1690.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2013.
Filed: July 1, 2013.
Jonathan Dean Ross, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Morse U. Gist, Jr., Hot Springs, AR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Cuauthemoe Sanchez-Lopez, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cuauthemoe Sanchez-Lopez appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to an immigration offense. 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 the district court abused its discretion by declining to vary downward even further.
Upon careful review, this court concludes that Sanehez-Lopez's appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in the plea agreement, that he entered into both the appeal waiver and the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal waiver in this case. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir.2011) (court should enforce appeal waiver if both waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, appeal is within waiver's scope, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.2009) (de novo review of whether defendant waived right to appeal sentence). 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 nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
. The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.