Court Opinion

ID: 9396670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 16:00:40.834881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:18.740075
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3325
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                   Demetrius Smith

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

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

                              Submitted: May 17, 2023
                                Filed: May 23, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Demetrius Smith appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pled guilty to several counts of Hobbs Act robbery and a count

      1
       The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court committed procedural error
at sentencing and imposed an unreasonable 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) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly
and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would
not result in miscarriage of justice).

      Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-