Court Opinion

ID: 9958200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 15:01:51.904281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.701960
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-3082
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                 Connie M. Gonzales

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

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

                              Submitted: April 3, 2024
                                Filed: April 8, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Connie Gonzales appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled
guilty to drug offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Her

      1
      The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), challenging a sentencing enhancement.

      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 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-