United States v. David Morago, No. 18-3635 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Erickson and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's appeal of the district court's order denying his renewed motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) was barred by the appeal waiver in his guilty plea.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3635 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. David Gabriel Morago lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: August 30, 2019 Filed: September 17, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate David Morago pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, in which he waived many rights, including the right to file a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He now appeals after the district court1 denied his renewed motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has submitted a brief acknowledging the plea agreement contained a waiver of the right to seek § 3582(c)(2) relief, but challenging the voluntariness of that waiver; and arguing Morago is eligible for a sentence reduction. Upon careful review, we conclude the record shows Morago knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement, including the § 3582(c)(2) waiver. Cf. United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (applying de novo review to validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). As the § 3582(c)(2) waiver is valid, we conclude the district court did not err in denying Morago’s renewed motion. See Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522, 541 (2011) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment) (noting if the government wants to ensure a defendant’s term of imprisonment will not be reduced, it can negotiate with such defendant to waive the right to seek a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2)). Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
