Court Opinion

ID: 9966224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 15:02:05.301479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:13.101009
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-3639
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                     Kennis Body

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Missouri
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: April 26, 2024
                               Filed: May 6, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

       Kennis Body appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled
guilty to drug offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an appeal waiver.

      1
       The Honorable Henry Edward Autrey, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence.

      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 validity and applicability of appeal waiver de novo);
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). 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 falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal based on the appeal waiver and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                        ______________________________

                                          -2-