Court Opinion

ID: 8406076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-27 16:01:10.012449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:47:08.086677
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
             For the Eighth Circuit
         ___________________________

                 No. 22-1967
         ___________________________

             United States of America,

        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                           v.

            Brandon Eugene McNeese,

       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
          ___________________________

                 No. 22-1968
         ___________________________

              United States of America,

        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                           v.

            Brandon Eugene McNeese,

       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                        ____________

     Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
                  ____________
                           Submitted: September 30, 2022
                              Filed: October 27, 2022
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Brandon McNeese appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed at his
consolidated sentencing hearing after he pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement
containing an appeal waiver, to a drug offense and a firearm offense that were
charged in 2 separate indictments. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing McNeese’s
sentence. McNeese has filed a pro se brief challenging his firearm conviction, and
a motion for appointment of new counsel.

      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) (standard of review); 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. McNeese argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional because
it exceeds the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause, but his
argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Joos, 638 F.3d 581,

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

                                          -2-
586 (8th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver,
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny McNeese’s motion for counsel.
                       ______________________________

                                        -3-