Court Opinion

ID: 9398839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 15:01:10.46528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:37.224261
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3199
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                               Richard H. Hampton

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                      ____________

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

                             Submitted: May 26, 2023
                               Filed: June 1, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Richard Hampton appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an

      1
      The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
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 sentencing 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). To the extent Hampton wishes to raise an ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim, we decline to consider it, as such a claim would be more
appropriately raised in collateral proceedings. See United States v. Oliver, 950 F.3d
556, 566 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellate court normally defers ineffective-assistance claims
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

       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-