Court Opinion

ID: 9840588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 16:00:43.861166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.862937
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1648
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

              Lamont Elliott, also known as Lamont William Elliott

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                           Submitted: September 7, 2023
                            Filed: September 19, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Lamont Elliott appeals after he pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine
pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved
to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising challenges to the voluntariness of Elliott’s plea and the sentence imposed by
the district court.1

      Upon careful review, we conclude that Elliott is precluded from challenging
the voluntariness of his guilty plea in this appeal because he withdrew his pro se
motion to withdraw the plea in the district court. See United States v. Gamboa, 701
F.3d 265, 267-68 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060
(8th Cir. 2010). We enforce the appeal waiver as to the remaining challenge to his
sentence. 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).

       We have also 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 we
dismiss the appeal.
                      ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

                                         -2-