Court Opinion

ID: 9352960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 17:00:22.285944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:17.663160
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2347
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                  Antonio Jackson

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: January 3, 2023
                             Filed: January 10, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Antonio Jackson directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the
district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a

      1
       The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
firearm pursuant to a written plea agreement containing 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), acknowledging the appeal waiver, but suggesting
the district court “plainly erred” in determining Jackson’s sentence.

       We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable because Jackson entered
into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his
challenge to the sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no
miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if
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). 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 outside
the scope of the appeal waiver.

      Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss this appeal.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-