Court Opinion

ID: 4090746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-19 15:01:33.731399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:26.512275
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                  For the Eighth Circuit
              ___________________________

                      No. 16-1094
              ___________________________

                   United States of America

             lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                v.

                 Maria Del Consuelo Garcia

            lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
               ___________________________

                      No. 16-1501
              ___________________________

                   United States of America

             lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

                                v.

Adalit Morales Antonio, also known as Antonio Morales Adalit

            lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
                            ____________

         Appeals from United States District Court
          for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
                      ____________

               Submitted: September 22, 2016
                  Filed: October 19, 2016
                       [Unpublished]
                      ____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       These are consolidated direct criminal appeals from judgments entered by the
district court.1 Maria Garcia and Adalit Antonio were charged in the same indictment
with participating in a drug conspiracy. They both pleaded guilty, pursuant to plea
agreements containing appeal waivers, and the district court sentenced them to prison
terms below the statutory minimum, based on safety-valve relief. Their attorneys
have moved for leave to withdraw, and have filed briefs under Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waivers, but challenging the
reasonableness of the sentences. In addition, Garcia has filed a pro se supplemental
brief arguing that her sentence is unfair.

       We conclude that the appeal waivers are enforceable. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability
of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). Furthermore, we have
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant both attorneys
leave to withdraw, and we dismiss these appeals.
                       ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

                                         -2-