United States v. Shain Sohl, No. 15-2821 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Bye, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his right to appeal the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in his plea agreement, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to the waiver.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2821 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Respondent v. Shain D. Sohl lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: January 21, 2016 Filed: January 28, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Shain Sohl directly appeals the sentence that the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to federal felon-in-possession charges. His counsel has moved to 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging that Sohl’s written plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, but challenging the substantive reasonableness of Sohl’s sentence. In a pro se supplemental brief, Sohl also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. After careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010), we will enforce the appeal waiver in this case. The claims raised in both the Anders brief and the supplemental brief fall within the scope of the waiver; Sohl’s sworn testimony at the plea hearing shows that he entered into the plea agreement, and the appeal waiver, knowingly and voluntarily; and dismissing the appeal based on the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. This appeal is dismissed, 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.
