United States v. Brandon Rubio, No. 16-3590 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the appeal waiver in his guilty plea, and the court will enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3590 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Brandon L. Rubio lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: April 25, 2017 Filed: April 28, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Brandon Rubio challenges the sentence the District Court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. methamphetamine with a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of the right to challenge his conviction and sentence. Rubio’s counsel moves to withdraw and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), argues that the sentence was greater than necessary. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. Rubio entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, the appeal 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) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that “the defendant’s representations during the plea-taking carry a strong presumption of verity” (citation to quoted case omitted)). 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 outside the scope of the waiver. We dismiss the appeal and 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.
