Court Opinion

ID: 9409773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 15:01:20.323022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.615973
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1215
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                  Darian Halliday

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                             Submitted: July 14, 2023
                               Filed: July 19, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Darian Halliday appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to suppress
evidence after he pleaded guilty to counterfeiting securities, pursuant to a plea

      1
       The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Noelle Collins, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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).

      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; appeal waivers should not be easily
voided by courts).

       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.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-