United States v. Shelton Lewis, No. 15-2992 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's challenge to his sentence was covered by the provisions of the appeal waiver in his plea agreement, and the appeal is dismissed. [ March 22, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2992 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Shelton E. Lewis, also known as C, also known as Steve Johnson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: March 18, 2016 Filed: March 23, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Shelton E. Lewis directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to extortionate communications and money laundering. His 1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Lewis has submitted a pro se brief in which he argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, because the Guidelines’ enhancements accounted for the seriousness of the offense, and the court did not adequately discuss the section 3553(a) factors. We conclude that Lewis’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claims. 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). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, 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.
