Court Opinion

ID: 9905795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:02:14.610648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:56.574770
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2622
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America,

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                            v.

                                 Roderick L. Stewart,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

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

                           Submitted: November 22, 2023
                             Filed: November 30, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Roderick Stewart appeals the judgment in his criminal case. Stewart pleaded
guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver,
and the district court1 imposed a sentence of 155 months in prison. Stewart’s counsel
has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), questioning whether the appeal waiver is valid and whether the sentence was
reasonable. In a pro se brief, Stewart primarily claims he was denied effective
assistance of counsel.

       On de novo review, we will enforce the appeal waiver. Stewart knowingly and
voluntarily entered into the plea agreement; a challenge to his sentence falls within
the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the
appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United
States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Nguyen v. United
States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997). Although the appeal waiver does not
prohibit ineffective-assistance claims, we decline to consider such claims on direct
appeal without an adequately developed record.               See United States v.
Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006).

       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
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

                                         -2-