Court Opinion

ID: 6330777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-13 16:00:28.240738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:06.644430
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 21-3656
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                 Mohamed Salah Hussein, also known as Cheese

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                         for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                              Submitted: April 5, 2022
                               Filed: April 11, 2022
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Mohamed Hussein appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

      1
       The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
waiver. His counsel has moved for leave 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 issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed
de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-