United States v. James King

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Michael J. Melloy and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4158252-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Thomas C. Plunkett. [4209195] [14-1935]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1935
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Jerome King
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: October 22, 2014
Filed: October 23, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James King directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy
charge, and the district court1 sentenced him to the statutory minimum, in accordance
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 14-1935

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Entry ID: 4209195

with his written plea agreement. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in the plea
agreement, and questioning the reasonableness of King’s sentence. In addition,
counsel seeks leave to withdraw.
After careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States
v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standard for enforcing
appeal waivers); United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard
of review). First, we conclude that counsel’s challenge to King’s sentence falls
within the scope of the appeal waiver. Second, based on King’s statements under
oath at the plea hearing, we are satisfied that he entered into both the plea agreement
and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See Nguyen v. United States, 114
F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997). Third, we conclude that no miscarriage of justice
would result from enforcing the waiver. See Andis, 333 F.3d at 891-92. Finally,
having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-1935

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/23/2014 Entry ID: 4209195