Court Opinion

ID: 9387015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 15:01:15.801388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:10.630401
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2951
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                     Bradley Reid

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: April 11, 2023
                               Filed: April 14, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Bradley Reid appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled
guilty to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a written plea agreement containing

      1
       The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
an appeal 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 issues raised in this appeal. 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, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant
knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing
waiver would not result in 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 outside the scope
of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                          -2-