United States v. Quincy Donnell, No. 07-2813 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant waived his right of appeal as part of his plea agreement, and the case is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2813 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Quincy Deron Donnell, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 21, 2008 Filed: October 30, 2008 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Quincy Deron Donnell appeals his sentence imposed by the district court1 following Donnell s guilty plea to possessing more than 5 grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Donnell s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in calculating Donnell s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Donnell s written plea agreement contains a broad waiver of the right to appeal his sentence. We enforce the waiver, because Donnell knowingly and voluntarily entered into both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, the argument on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, and no injustice would result from enforcing it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. We also grant defense counsel s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. ______________________________ -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.
