Court Opinion

ID: 9372019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 17:00:20.123288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:31.968572
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3412
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                   Herbert Keith Wells, also known as Get ‘Em

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                         for the District of North Dakota
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 14, 2023
                             Filed: February 17, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Herbert Wells appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled
guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.

      1
       The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of North Dakota.
His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.

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

                                         -2-