United States v. Pierre Starks, No. 07-3300 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant executed a valid appeal waiver as part of the plea agreement, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 07-3300/3410 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Pierre Starks, also known as Pep, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: February 4, 2009 Filed: February 25, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pierre Starks appeals the 188-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to three drug charges. In these appeals, Starks s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Starks s sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that these appeals fall within the scope of a valid appeal waiver that was contained in Starks s written plea agreement, that he 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would not cause a miscarriage of justice. 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 under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we enforce the waiver and dismiss these appeals. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform Starks 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.
