Court Opinion

ID: 9950553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 15:02:00.88477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:25.890296
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-2893
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                             Cory Taz-Dalton Hack

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                     ____________

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

                           Submitted: March 7, 2024
                            Filed: March 14, 2024
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Cory Hack appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to drug, money laundering, and firearms charges

      1
      The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
pursuant to a written 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 substantive reasonableness of 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, grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Hack’s motion for appointment of new
counsel as moot.
                     ______________________________

                                          -2-