Court Opinion

ID: 9397118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 16:00:28.030908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.711958
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1075
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                Tirrell M. Thompson

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                              Submitted: May 19, 2023
                                Filed: May 24, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Tirrell Thompson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a firearm offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

      1
      The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
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 issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed
de novo); 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 the scope of the waiver, 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 under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-