Filed: Aug. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1750 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Manjarrez-Sanchez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha _ Submitted: August 5, 2016 Filed: August 12, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Juan Manjarrez-Sanchez directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district 1
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-1750 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Juan Manjarrez-Sanchez lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha _ Submitted: August 5, 2016 Filed: August 12, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Juan Manjarrez-Sanchez directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district 1 c..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-1750
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Manjarrez-Sanchez
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: August 5, 2016
Filed: August 12, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Juan Manjarrez-Sanchez directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district
1
court after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. His
1
The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that
Manjarrez-Sanchez’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration
of his claim. 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).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988),
we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
According, we dismiss the appeal and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-