Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harold Thomas VICTOR, Jr., Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-02
Citations: 109 F. App'x 824
Docket Number: No. 03-3805
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harold Thomas VICTOR, Jr., Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 824–824

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harold Thomas VICTOR, Jr., Appellant.
No. 03-3805.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 30, 2004.
Decided Sept. 2, 2004.
Michelle E. Jones, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrea K. George, Asst. F.P. Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Harold Victor (Victor) pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e). The district court sentenced him as an armed career criminal to the statutory minimum of 180 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Victor's counsel 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), challenging the denial of motions to suppress evidence and statements, and Victor's sentence.
As part of his plea agreement, Victor explicitly waived his right to pursue any pretrial issues he raised or could have raised, his right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 any lawful sentence not exceeding 210 months imprisonment, and his right to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because the record demonstrates Victor's plea and plea agreement were voluntary and he understood he was waiving his appellate rights, his sentence is consistent with the plea agreement, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal waiver, we enforce the waiver and dismiss this appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-91 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc).
We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
. The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.