Filed: May 03, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2757 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. William A. Porter, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: April 24, 2019 Filed: May 3, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. William Porter directly appeals the sentence the district court1 impose
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-2757 _ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. William A. Porter, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: April 24, 2019 Filed: May 3, 2019 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. William Porter directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2757
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
William A. Porter,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 24, 2019
Filed: May 3, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
William Porter directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after
he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
1
The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable.
We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case because Porter entered into the
plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the
sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice
would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott,
627 F.3d 702, 704
(8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th
Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, we have independently reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for
appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal.
______________________________
-2-