Court Opinion

ID: 9385603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 16:00:28.117488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:03.209985
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-3176
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                             Uriel Ramirez-Manzanares

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Arkansas
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: March 29, 2023
                               Filed: April 7, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Uriel Ramirez-Manzanares appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1
after he pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, pursuant

      1
      The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
to a plea agreement that includes an 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 the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and
applicable to the sentencing issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott,
627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing validity and applicability of appeal
waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (holding an appeal waiver should be enforced if the appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered in the plea
agreement, and its enforcement would not result in a miscarriage of justice). 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-