United States v. Matthew Casas, No. 15-2753 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his right to appeal a part of his plea agreement,and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2753 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Matthew Paul Casas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: February 3, 2016 Filed: February 5, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Matthew Paul Casas directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to distributing and possessing child pornography. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal. Casas’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The appeal is dismissed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
