United States v. Richard Billingsley, No. 12-2511 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal his sentence as part of his plea agreement, and this appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2511/12-2512 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Wayne Billingsley lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: April 25, 2013 Filed: April 30, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Richard Billingsley pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1), and to possession of counterfeit obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. The district court1 imposed concurrent sentences of 151 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Billingsley s counsel seeks leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court miscalculated the applicable Guidelines range and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. In both cases, there is a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver under which Billingsley waived the right to appeal his sentence except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or an illegal sentence. After careful review of the record, we will enforce the appeal waiver in each case. The plea agreements and plea hearing transcript show that Billingsley entered into the plea agreements and the appeal waivers knowingly and voluntarily; the arguments raised on appeal fall within the scope of the waivers; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waivers. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (setting forth standard for enforcing appeal waivers). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waivers. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals based on the appeal waivers, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
