Filed: Aug. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-2972 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Anthony Arce Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo _ Submitted: April 15, 2020 Filed: August 11, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Steven Arce pleaded guilty to selling a firearm to a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1). The plea agreement waived his right t
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-2972 _ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Anthony Arce Defendant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo _ Submitted: April 15, 2020 Filed: August 11, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Steven Arce pleaded guilty to selling a firearm to a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1). The plea agreement waived his right to..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-2972
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Steven Anthony Arce
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2020
Filed: August 11, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Steven Arce pleaded guilty to selling a firearm to a felon, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(1). The plea agreement waived his right to appeal his sentence unless, as
relevant here, it exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court 1 gave him a 90-
1
The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
month sentence, less than the statutory maximum. See
id. § 924(a)(2) (setting a
statutory maximum of 120 months in prison). On appeal, he argues that the court
committed several procedural errors and imposed a substantively unreasonable
sentence.
We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See
United States v. Scott,
627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we
conclude that the waiver in this case is applicable and enforceable. 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). Arce’s
arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-