United States v. Dylan Maron, No. 16-4396 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant voluntarily entered into a valid and enforceable appeal waiver which covers the issues raised in the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4396 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dylan Maron lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: November 28, 2017 Filed: December 28, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dylan Maron directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to participating in a drug conspiracy, pursuant to a plea agreement 1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska. containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. Maron has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, challenging the validity of the plea agreement. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be enforced as to the issues on appeal, because our review of the record demonstrates that Maron entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); and because the arguments fall 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, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, grant counsel leave to withdraw, 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.
