Filed: Jul. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1355 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Jose Olivares, also known as Juan Jose Oliveros lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: July 7, 2016 Filed: July 12, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Juan Olivares appeals from the sentence
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1355 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Jose Olivares, also known as Juan Jose Oliveros lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: July 7, 2016 Filed: July 12, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Juan Olivares appeals from the sentence t..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1355
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Jose Olivares, also known as Juan Jose Oliveros
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 7, 2016
Filed: July 12, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Juan Olivares appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His written plea agreement included an appeal
1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was
unreasonable. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States
v. Scott,
627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo “the validity and
applicability” of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 889–92
(8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied,
540
U.S. 997 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal.
______________________________
-2-