Court Opinion

ID: 9950986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 15:01:53.823931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:49.776660
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3567
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                               Carl Crooked Eyes

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

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

                           Submitted: March 12, 2024
                             Filed: March 15, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Carl Crooked Eyes received a 16-month prison sentence after he pleaded
guilty to assaulting a federal officer. See 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). An Anders brief
suggests that the district court 1 abused its discretion by imposing a substantively
unreasonable sentence. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

       Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement
covers this issue. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333
F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will
be enforced if the appeal falls within its scope, 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 and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly dismiss the appeal and grant counsel
permission to withdraw.
                        ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of South Dakota.
                                     -2-