Court Opinion

ID: 9891376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 15:01:08.974095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.691060
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2154
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                Jeffery S. Honeyball

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: October 12, 2023
                             Filed: October 18, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jeffery Honeyball appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district
     1
court imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm charge pursuant to a written plea

         1
      The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
sentence.

      Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly
and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would
not result in miscarriage of justice). Further, having independently reviewed the
record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for
appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

     Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                          -2-