Court Opinion

ID: 9390331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 16:00:38.71524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.515299
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2799
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                               Bradwin Earl Wymore

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                         for the District of North Dakota
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: March 16, 2023
                              Filed: April 27, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Bradwin Wymore appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pled guilty to child-exploitation offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an

      1
       The Honorable Daniel M. Traynor, United States District Judge for the District
of North Dakota.
appeal waiver. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s order of restitution.

       Upon careful review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and
applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Schulte, 436 F.3d
849, 850 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of appeal
waiver to restitution); 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 it would not
result in miscarriage of justice).

      Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                          -2-