Filed: Aug. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-2538 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Marcus J. Glover, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: August 7, 2007 Filed: August 14, 2007 _ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Marcus J. Glover appeals the 168-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to dist
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-2538 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Marcus J. Glover, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: August 7, 2007 Filed: August 14, 2007 _ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Marcus J. Glover appeals the 168-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distr..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-2538
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Marcus J. Glover, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: August 7, 2007
Filed: August 14, 2007
___________
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Marcus J. Glover appeals the 168-month prison sentence the district court1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. On appeal, Glover’s counsel
has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S.
738 (1967).
1
The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
Glover’s written plea agreement contains a valid appeal waiver which
encompasses the argument that counsel raises on appeal, and we conclude that the
waiver is enforceable and that enforcing it would not cause a miscarriage of justice.
See United States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena,
201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders
case).
After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75
(1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we enforce the
waiver and dismiss this appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition
that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing
and for certiorari.
______________________________
-2-