Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2479 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Abdul Ahmed Asalati Defendant - Appellant _ No. 18-2482 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Abdul Ahmed Asalati Defendant - Appellant _ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: March 25, 2019 Filed: March 28, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. W
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2479 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Abdul Ahmed Asalati Defendant - Appellant _ No. 18-2482 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Abdul Ahmed Asalati Defendant - Appellant _ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: March 25, 2019 Filed: March 28, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Wh..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2479
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Abdul Ahmed Asalati
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 18-2482
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Abdul Ahmed Asalati
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: March 25, 2019
Filed: March 28, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
While on supervised release, Abdul Asalati pleaded guilty to conspiring to
distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and possessing a firearm in
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). As part of his
plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal unless, as relevant here, his sentence
exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court 1 imposed a total sentence of
230 months in prison, which included 170 months on the drug-distribution count and
60 months on the firearm-possession count. Neither sentence exceeded the statutory
maximum. See
id. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B).
In a separate proceeding, the district court revoked Asalati’s supervised
release and sentenced him to a 24-month prison term. The court ordered the
sentences to run consecutively, which resulted in a total prison sentence of 254
months. In an Anders brief, Asalati’s counsel raises the enforceability of the appeal
waiver and the substantive reasonableness of the sentences, especially when viewed
together, as potential issues on appeal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967). Counsel also seeks permission to withdraw.
Id.
We review the validity and applicability of the appeal waiver de novo. See
United States v. Scott,
627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we
1
The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-
conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to Asalati’s
challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his 230-month sentence. See United
States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an
appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice).
The appeal waiver, by its terms, does not cover Asalati’s 24-month sentence
for violating the conditions of supervised release, but we nevertheless conclude that
the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Feemster,
572 F.3d
455, 461–62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing
decisions); United States v. Calloway,
762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that
a within-Guidelines-range sentence is presumptively reasonable). We further
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered the
sentences to run consecutively. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n.4(C) (recommending
that a revocation sentence and a sentence for a new offense “be imposed
consecutively”).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio,
488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have not identified any other non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in No. 18-2482,
affirm the judgment in No. 18-2479, and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-