Court Opinion

ID: 9392204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 16:01:49.617052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.326149
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3208
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                     Plaintiff - Appellee

                                       v.

                                Ruben Vasquez

                                   Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: May 1, 2023
                              Filed: May 4, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

     Ruben Vasquez appeals after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine. The district court1 sentenced him, pursuant to an agreement

      1
       The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
containing an appeal waiver, to a within-Guidelines-range prison term. Having
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal based on the
appeal waiver.

       Counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence. The appeal waiver is valid and enforceable, as the issue raised in this
appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, the record shows that Vasquez
entered into the agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and no
miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if appeal
falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into
waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of
justice).

      This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal
waiver.

      The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
                       ______________________________

                                        -2-