United States v. Emmanuel Suarez


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Steven M. Colloton, Raymond W. Gruender and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4372545-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Bobby Bailey. [4414279] [15-3620]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3620 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Emmanuel Suarez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2016 Filed: June 20, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Emmanuel Suarez appeals after he pled guilty to drug and gun charges pursuant to a plea agreement, and the district court1 sentenced him to prison terms totaling 120 1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 15-3620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2016 Entry ID: 4414279 months. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Suarez’s plea was not knowing and voluntary. We conclude that counsel’s argument presents no meritorious basis for reversing. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (claim that guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to present it to district court in first instance by motion to withdraw guilty plea). Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-3620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2016 Entry ID: 4414279

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?