Court Opinion

ID: 9376007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 17:00:45.249126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.936087
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2820
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Eddie Dean McBride

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 21, 2023
                              Filed: March 1, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Eddie McBride pleaded guilty to distribution of methamphetamine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of the plea agreement, McBride waived
his right to appeal unless the district court1 gave him a sentence that exceeded the
statutory maximum. The district court sentenced McBride to 120 months in prison.
McBride’s below-Guidelines sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum. See
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). McBride’s counsel moved to withdraw, and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive
reasonableness of McBride’s sentence. In a pro se brief and a supplemental
memorandum, McBride challenges the district court’s calculation of the advisory
Guidelines range. The government moved to dismiss this appeal based on the appeal
waiver.

      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) (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.
                       ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.

                                          -2-