United States v. Cody William

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4378192-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Steven Carroll Reed. [4452738] [16-1359]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1359
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cody Dean Williams
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: August 25, 2016
Filed: September 28, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cody Dean Williams pleaded guilty to a charge of possession with intent to
distribute a methamphetamine mixture, and the district court1 sentenced him to 160

1

The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 16-1359

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Entry ID: 4452738

months in prison and three years of supervised release, after varying downward from
the calculated advisory Guidelines range. This appeal followed, in which Williams’s
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district court’s calculation of drug quantity and the
court’s conclusion that Williams was a career offender under USSG § 4B1.1.
Williams pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver
of his right to appeal his sentence, with certain exceptions that do not apply in this
case; and his plea-hearing testimony establishes that he entered into the plea
agreement, and the appeal waiver, knowingly and voluntarily. Further, enforcing the
appeal waiver in this case would not create a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we
will enforce the appeal waiver, which prevents consideration of the claims before us.
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).
Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, and
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 16-1359

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Entry ID: 4452738