Court Opinion

ID: 9925383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-19 17:00:45.617742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:20.941955
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-3042
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                                   Willie Harbour

                                     Defendant - Appellant
                                   ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: January 16, 2024
                              Filed: January 19, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Willie Harbour received a 57-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty
to a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The two
issues identified in an Anders brief are the enforceability of an appeal waiver in his
plea agreement and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief questions the validity
of the guilty plea itself.

       The challenge to the plea falls outside the appeal waiver, see United States v.
Schneider, 40 F.4th 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2022), but we conclude that Harbour acted
voluntarily and knowingly in entering into it and the district court 1 had a reasonable
basis to determine that he committed the offense, see United States v. Frook, 616
F.3d 773, 775–76 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for plain error when the defendant did
not object); see also United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2011)
(explaining that facts from the plea agreement and presentence report can establish
a factual basis). And then, by virtue of the waiver itself, Harbour relinquished the
right to challenge the reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627
F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo);
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining
that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within its scope, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing it would not result in a miscarriage of justice).

      Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non-frivolous issues exist.2 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).
We accordingly affirm for the most part, dismiss the sentencing challenge, grant
counsel permission to withdraw, and deny the motion to appoint new counsel as
moot.
                       ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
      2
        We did, however, spot a clerical mistake, so we modify the judgment to
reflect that Harbour was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2106.
                                       -2-