United States v. David Stidum, No. 09-3783 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Anders case. Defendant waived his right of appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3783 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. David Stidum, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 6, 2010 Filed: July 12, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, David Stidum pleaded guilty to a drug offense, and the district court1 sentenced him to 84 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Stidum entered his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement that contains a waiver of his right to appeal (1) all non-jurisdictional issues, and (2) all sentencing 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. issues if the court sentenced him within the Sentencing Guidelines range resulting from adopting the parties agreed-upon recommendations. We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case, because the record shows that Stidum entered his plea voluntarily, with full knowledge of and consent to the appeal waiver, and his sentence is within the Guidelines range resulting from adoption of the parties recommendations. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforceability of appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). The district court s instruction to Stidum at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing that he had ten days to appeal does not bar the enforceability of the appeal waiver. See United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 774 (8th Cir. 2009). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
