Court Opinion

ID: 9891044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 15:01:19.092295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.642644
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1956
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                   Ezekiel D. Barry

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                            Submitted: October 12, 2023
                              Filed: October 17, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Ezekiel Barry appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing

      1
       The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Barry’s career-offender
classification.

      Upon careful review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and
applicable to the issues 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 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).

      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-