United States v. Juan Rodriguez-Maynez

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4294831-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. W. Scott Toth.; Denying as moot [4318093-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Maynez. [4369845] [15-2266]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2266
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Maynez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: February 16, 2016
Filed: February 23, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Maynez directly appeals the sentence imposed by the
district court1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to smuggle bulk cash and
1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-2266

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369845

conspiring to import cocaine. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was
unreasonable. We conclude that Rodriguez-Maynez’s appeal waiver should be
enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627
F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope
of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily,
and no miscarriage of justice would result). Having independently reviewed the
record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal. We note, however, that the judgment incorrectly cites 21 U.S.C.
§ 960(b)(1)(3), and we order that the judgment be corrected to substitute section
960(b)(3) for section 960(b)(1)(3). See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (appellate court may modify
any judgment brought before it for review).
According, we dismiss the appeal, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and
we deny Rodriguez-Maynez’s motion for new counsel as moot.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2266

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/23/2016 Entry ID: 4369845