United States v. Russell Anderson, Jr., No. 13-3306 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant executed a valid, enforceable appeal waiver, and this appeal challenging the reasonableness of his sentence must be dismissed. [ April 11, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3306 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Russell William Anderson, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: April 9, 2014 Filed: April 14, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Russell Anderson directly appeals after he pled guilty to drug and moneylaundering offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him to 135 months in prison, the 1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. bottom of the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range calculated by the court. Anderson s counsel has filed a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines range and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Counsel also moves for leave to withdraw, and Anderson moves for appointment of new counsel. We note that Anderson pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver is generally enforceable if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant entered into both plea agreement and waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcement of waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice; allegation that judge misapplied Guidelines or abused his or her discretion is not basis for finding miscarriage of justice in face of valid appeal waiver). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issue for appeal, outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and deny Anderson s motion for appointment of new counsel. ______________________________ -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.
