From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Wilcox

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Oct 12, 2010
396 F. App'x 327 (8th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 10-1985, 10-1986.

Submitted: October 7, 2010.

Filed: October 12, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.


[UNPUBLISHED]


Pursuant to written plea agreements containing waivers of his right to appeal, Clayton Wilcox pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and possessing with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-Benzylpiperazine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Wilcox to consecutive prison terms of 30 months and 130 months, and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the total sentence of 160 months is unreasonable.

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

We will enforce the appeal waivers because the appeals fall within the scope of the waivers, the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the appeal waivers would not constitute a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to question defendant properly about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the appeal waivers. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeals.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Wilcox

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Oct 12, 2010
396 F. App'x 327 (8th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Wilcox

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Clayton Sung WILCOX, Appellant

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Oct 12, 2010

Citations

396 F. App'x 327 (8th Cir. 2010)