Court Opinion

ID: 9905797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:02:21.813128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:56.498564
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1609
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                           v.

                                Jacob Alan Sanders,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

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

                          Submitted: November 16, 2023
                            Filed: November 30, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Jacob Sanders appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after Sanders
pleaded guilty to attempted possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent

      1
      The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
minor. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), (b)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning
whether the district court erred by applying USSG § 2G2.2(c)(1) and imposing an
unreasonable sentence.

      A plea agreement signed by Sanders included a waiver of the right to appeal.
On de novo review, we will enforce the appeal waiver. Sanders knowingly and
voluntarily entered into the plea agreement; the issues raised fall within the scope of
the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal
waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States
v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 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 waiver.

     Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-