United States v. Froylan Pedroza-Guadarrama

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Diana E. Murphy and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4228978-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Froylan Pedroza-Guadarrama.; Granting [4216964-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Susan M. Hunt, subject to counsel informing appellant about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and for filing a petition for writ of certiorari. [4266179] [14-2615]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2615
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Froylan Pedroza-Guadarrama
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: April 14, 2015
Filed: April 17, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Froylan Pedroza-Guadarrama directly appeals the sentence the district court1
imposed in his criminal case. Pedroza pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 14-2615

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Entry ID: 4266179

possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A), and 846. In the written plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his
sentence on any ground except for ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct,
or an illegal sentence. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), counsel argues that the district court erred in calculating the drug quantity
attributable to Pedroza. In a pro se supplemental brief, Pedroza raises additional
arguments that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly litigate his
objection to the drug quantity, and that the district court erred in denying his request
for a minor-role reduction.
After careful review, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this appeal. See
United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review);
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal-waiver
rule). The drug-quantity and minor-role-reduction issues fall within the scope of the
waiver; Pedroza knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and
waiver, as the magistrate2 reviewed both with Pedroza, who indicated that he had
reviewed the agreement with counsel, understood its terms, and voluntarily pleaded
guilty, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s
statements during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity); and enforcing the
waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice, see Andis, 333 F.3d at 891-92
(outlining narrow miscarriage-of-justice exception to appeal-waiver rule; allegation
that sentencing court misapplied Sentencing Guidelines or abused its sentencing
discretion is not subject to appeal in face of valid appeal waiver). Further, the record
is insufficiently developed to consider Pedroza’s ineffective-assistance claim on direct
appeal. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 2013) (ineffectiveassistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings, and this court
considers such claims on direct appeal only if record has been fully developed,

2

The Honorable Matt J. Whitworth, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2615

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Entry ID: 4266179

counsel’s error is readily apparent, or to not act would amount to plain miscarriage of
justice). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pedroza’s pro se motion to appoint new
counsel is denied. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, subject to counsel
informing appellant about the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and for
filing a petition for writ of certiorari.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2615

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/17/2015 Entry ID: 4266179