United States v. Russell Anderson, Jr.


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4112086-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Russell William Anderson, Jr..; Granting [4108595-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Casey Symonds. [4143504] [13-3306]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3306 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Russell William Anderson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: April 9, 2014 Filed: April 14, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Russell Anderson directly appeals after he pled guilty to drug and moneylaundering offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him to 135 months in prison, the 1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 13-3306 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2014 Entry ID: 4143504 bottom of the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range calculated by the court. Anderson’s counsel has filed a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines range and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Counsel also moves for leave to withdraw, and Anderson moves for appointment of new counsel. We note that Anderson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver is generally enforceable if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant entered into both plea agreement and waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement of waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice; allegation that judge misapplied Guidelines or abused his or her discretion is not basis for finding miscarriage of justice in face of valid appeal waiver). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issue for appeal, outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Anderson’s motion for appointment of new counsel. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 13-3306 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2014 Entry ID: 4143504

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?