Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2148 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesse E. Morgan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: January 11, 2016 Filed: January 14, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jesse Morgan appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed afte
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2148 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jesse E. Morgan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: January 11, 2016 Filed: January 14, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Jesse Morgan appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2148
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jesse E. Morgan
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: January 11, 2016
Filed: January 14, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jesse Morgan appeals from the sentence the District Court1 imposed after he
pleaded guilty to wire fraud. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
1
The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
386 U.S. 738 (1967), requesting leave to withdraw and arguing that the District Court
inadequately considered a relevant factor at sentencing.
Morgan’s written plea agreement contained an appeal waiver. Upon careful
review, we enforce the waiver. See 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, see Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issue for appeal outside the
scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel
leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-