United States v. Eric Mack, No. 13-2069 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant knowingly waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence as part of the plea agreement, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2069 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eric L. Mack lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 25, 2013 Filed: November 12, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. After Eric Mack pleaded guilty to a charge of escaping from custody, the district court1 varied upward from the applicable Guidelines range and sentenced him 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. to 16 months in prison. Seeking leave to withdraw, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Mack s sentence was excessive in light of the statutory goals of sentencing. Mack pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a waiver of his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and we will enforce the appeal waiver. This appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, which, by its terms, applies in a direct criminal appeal unless the grounds of appeal include ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or an illegal sentence. Further, the record reflects that Mack entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and we find that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver in this case. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). Finally, 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 waiver. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
