United States v. Shain Sohl

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Diana E. Murphy and Kermit E. Bye (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4314997-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Anita L. Burns. [4360773] [15-2821]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2821
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Respondent
v.
Shain D. Sohl
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: January 21, 2016
Filed: January 28, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Shain Sohl directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed after
he pled guilty to federal felon-in-possession charges. His counsel has moved to

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-2821

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Entry ID: 4360773

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
acknowledging that Sohl’s written plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, but
challenging the substantive reasonableness of Sohl’s sentence. In a pro se
supplemental brief, Sohl also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence.
After careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th
Cir. 2010), we will enforce the appeal waiver in this case. The claims raised in both
the Anders brief and the supplemental brief fall within the scope of the waiver; Sohl’s
sworn testimony at the plea hearing shows that he entered into the plea agreement, and
the appeal waiver, knowingly and voluntarily; and dismissing the appeal based on the
waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d
886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, having independently reviewed the
record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues
that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
This appeal is dismissed, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-2821

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/28/2016 Entry ID: 4360773