United States v. Randy Mull, No. 16-3691 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's plea agreement contained a valid appeal waiver, and this appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3691 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Randy Mull, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 28, 2017 Filed: May 1, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Randy Mull directly appeals the 30-year sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, pursuant to a written plea 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. agreement that contained a waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Mull’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the sentence as substantively unreasonable. We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case, because our review of the record demonstrates that Mull entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily. The only argument presented falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 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.
