Court Opinion

ID: 9396116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 16:01:51.230536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.175615
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1418
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America,

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                            v.

                               Daniel Espinoza Valle,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
                                   ____________

                              Submitted: May 16, 2023
                                Filed: May 19, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Daniel Espinoza Valle appeals the judgment in his criminal case. Valle
pleaded guilty to a drug trafficking offense and a charge of carrying a firearm during
and relation to the drug offense. The district court1 imposed a total sentence of 180
months. Valle’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether the district court erred
in denying Valle’s motion to suppress.

       Valle’s plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal. On careful
review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the
issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th
Cir. 2003) (en banc).

       We have 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
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

                                         -2-