United States v. Gary Sanders, No. 16-4507 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The government did not breach the plea agreement in the matter; the plea agreement contained a valid and enforceable appeal waiver; as defendant's issue falls within the scope of the waiver, the appeal is dismissed. [ July 21, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4507 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Gary Lynn Sanders lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: July 19, 2017 Filed: July 24, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Gary Sanders challenges the sentence the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug charges, pursuant to a written plea 1 1 The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. agreement. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue that the government breached the plea agreement by not agreeing to a sentence below the statutory minimum, and therefore invalidated the appeal waiver; and that the sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that the government did not breach the plea agreement, as it did not promise to move for a sentence below the statutory minimum, see United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 615, 617 (8th Cir. 1994); Sanders 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); 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); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 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.
