United States v. Jose Heredia, No. 17-1839 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's jurisdictional argument is meritless; defendant's sentencing challenges are barred by his appeal waiver, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1839 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Jose Luis Heredia lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Belcourt ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2017 Filed: November 13, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Heredia directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, and 21 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal in light of the appeal waiver. Counsel also has moved for leave to withdraw. Heredia has filed a pro se brief, arguing that the district court either lacked jurisdiction or committed a sentencing error. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver. We conclude that Heredia’s jurisdictional argument is meritless. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (“The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”). As to his sentencing-error argument, we conclude that the waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing requirements for enforcing appeal waivers). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we 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.
