United States v. Steven Davis, No. 16-3526 (8th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his right of appeal as part of the plea agreement and 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. 16-3526 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Steven Marquain Davis lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: May 26, 2017 Filed: June 1, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Steven Davis challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of Bank Robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1 1 The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 2113(a), and one count of Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of the right to challenge his conviction and sentence. Davis’s counsel moves to withdraw, and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), argues that the district court erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence that did not adequately and fully address the criteria enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Davis entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily; the argument falls within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. 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, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and we 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.