Court Opinion

ID: 9915512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-05 17:00:43.471156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:30.853157
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2606
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                    Jason Sejnoha

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of South Dakota - Southern
                                   ____________

                          Submitted: December 29, 2023
                             Filed: January 5, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

     Jason Sejnoha appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to a child pornography offense pursuant to a written

      1
       The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
plea 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-