Court Opinion

ID: 9948995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 16:01:45.910006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:27.583818
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-3090
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America,

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

                                           v.

                                  Joshua Humbach,

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 28, 2024
                              Filed: March 8, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

      Joshua Humbach appeals a sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. Humbach signed a plea

      1
      The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
agreement that contained an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

      On de novo review, we will enforce the appeal waiver. Humbach knowingly
and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement. A challenge to his sentence falls
within the scope of the appeal waiver. 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 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 this appeal based on the appeal
waiver, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-