Court Opinion

ID: 9890816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 16:00:44.666176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.609045
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1905
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                             Charles Ward Kuentzel, II

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: October 11, 2023
                              Filed: October 16, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Charles Kuentzel II appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a child-exploitation offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing

      1
      The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable but acknowledging the appeal waiver.

      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) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (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).

       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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-