Court Opinion

ID: 9958990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 16:01:58.245828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:22.414432
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-3508
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                       Darius Dokun Oluwadami Balogun

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                         for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                             Submitted: April 5, 2024
                              Filed: April 10, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Darius Balogun appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing

      1
      The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
an appeal waiver. His 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.

       Upon careful review, we conclude 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 de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal
waiver); 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 enforcing waiver would
not result in a miscarriage of justice).

      Further, we have 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
dismiss this appeal.
                      ______________________________

                                          -2-