United States v. Timothy Harris, No. 17-1403 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The appeal waiver in defendant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and this appeal is within its scope. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1403 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Timothy Harris, also known as T., also known as Rakeem lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 28, 2017 Filed: November 30, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Timothy Harris challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. to drug and firearm charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable and failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Harris 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.
