United States v. Jamane Smith, No. 16-2545 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bowman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant signed a valid and enforceable appeal waiver as part of his plea agreement, and the waiver prevents consideration of his claim that his sentence is substantively unreasonable; the appeal is dismissed. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2545 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jamane J. Smith lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 28, 2016 Filed: January 3, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jamane Smith appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 imposing sentence after he pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm charges. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Smith has filed a pro se brief challenging the court’s conclusion that he was a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. He has also filed a motion requesting that his appeal be held in abeyance pending an anticipated Supreme Court decision. Smith pleaded guilty after entering into a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Notwithstanding the assertions made by counsel and Smith, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003); see also United States v. Lumpkins, 687 F.3d 1011, 1014–15 (8th Cir. 2012) (enforcing an appeal waiver in an analogous case), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1612 (2013). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny Smith’s motion, and dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -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.
