Court Opinion

ID: 9399233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 16:01:00.488011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:03.293543
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1339
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                       Hon Chau

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                              Submitted: May 23, 2023
                                Filed: June 2, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Hon Chau appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty
to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

      1
      The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
waiver. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal
based on the appeal waiver.

      Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, but
challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that
the appeal waiver is enforceable, as counsel’s argument falls within the scope of the
appeal waiver, the record shows that Chau entered into the plea 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, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced 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 reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal
waiver.

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

                                         -2-