United States v. Jordan Wade


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Pasco M. Bowman and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4325381-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. David Guastello. [4382747] [15-2841]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2841 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jordan L. Wade lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 01, 2016 Filed: March 29, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jordan Wade directly appeals after he pled guilty to possession of stolen firearms, and the district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence. His 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 15-2841 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2016 Entry ID: 4382747 counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Wade’s sentence on substantive and procedural grounds. Wade has filed a pro se brief, reiterating counsel’s arguments, and claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. We note that Wade pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable as to the arguments challenging Wade’s sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (applicability of appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); see also United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). We further conclude that Wade’s pro se ineffective-assistance claim is outside the scope of the appeal waiver, but we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005) (absent exceptional cases, ineffective-assistance claims are better raised in habeas proceedings). Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-2841 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2016 Entry ID: 4382747

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?