Court Opinion

ID: 9961238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:03:52.975385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:31.849241
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3745
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                   Robert Lennox

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: April 12, 2024
                               Filed: April 18, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Robert Lennox appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to a sex offense under a written plea agreement containing an appeal

      1
      The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

       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) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United
States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will
be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and
enforcing the waiver would not result in a 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 waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss this
appeal.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-