United States v. Scott Donald Wiele, No. 06-2821 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Appeal waiver enforced, and appeal dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2821 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Scott Donald Wiele, Appellant. * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: October 5, 2007 Filed: October 31, 2007 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Scott Donald Wiele appeals the 108-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Count 1); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count 2); and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) (Count 3). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), his counsel argues that Wiele s sentence is unreasonable because the court failed to consider the mitigating factors presented at sentencing, and improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. We enforce the appeal waiver included in Wiele s plea agreement: the plea colloquy reflects that Wiele understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). After reviewing the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm the judgment of the district court. We grant counsel s withdrawal motion, and we deny Wiele s pending motion to stay the 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.
