United States v. Juan Rodriguez-Maynez


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4294831-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]

Download PDF
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for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: February 16, 2016 Filed: February 23, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.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

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?