U.S. v. SOTO-ZAZUETA, 18-3036. (2019)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Number: infco20190702131
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM . Lorenzo Soto-Zazueta directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court 1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing enforcement of the plea waiver and reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful
Summary: UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM . Lorenzo Soto-Zazueta directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court 1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing enforcement of the plea waiver and reasonableness of the sentence. Upon careful d..
More
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM.
Lorenzo Soto-Zazueta directly appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense, under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term below the calculated United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing enforcement of the plea waiver and reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Dallman, 886 F.3d 1277, 1280 (8th Cir. 2018) ("We review de novo issues concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a plea agreement and the application of appeal waivers."); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). We have also 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 enforce the appeal waiver, dismiss this appeal, and grant counsel leave to withdraw.
FootNotes
1. The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Source: Leagle
