United States v. Claudia Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 08-1786 (8th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Defendants knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and appeal waiver. A challenge to reasonableness of the sentence falls within the scope of the waiver, and enforcing appeal waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1786 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Claudia Rodriguez-Rivera, * District of Minnesota. also known as Claudia Rodriguez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: September 1, 2009 Filed: October 13, 2009 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Claudia Rodriguez-Rivera pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute approximately 140 grams of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court1 sentenced Rodriguez-Rivera to 97 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, her counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he requests leave to withdraw. Counsel 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. challenges the reasonableness of Rodriguez-Rivera s sentence, and suggests that she did not knowingly and voluntarily waive her right to appeal her sentence and that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Upon careful review, we conclude that Rodriguez-Rivera knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that the reasonableness of her sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court will enforce appeal waiver where both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, appeal falls within scope of waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We 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.