United States v. Billy Scarlett, No. 08-2069 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Claim that sentence as unreasonable falls within scope of the appeal waiver in Scarlett's plea agreement, plea was understood and voluntary and no injustice would result from enforcing appeal waiver. Waiver is enforced.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2069 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Billy Marie Scarlett, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 8, 2009 Filed: October 14, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Billy Marie Scarlett (Scarlett) appeals the 240-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after Scarlett pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Her counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was unreasonable, and moved to withdraw. Scarlett filed a supplemental brief raising the same argument. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. Scarlett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing a waiver of the right to appeal her conviction and sentence. We enforce that appeal waiver here. The record reflects Scarlett understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver; the 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); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing an appeal waiver in an Anders case). 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 waiver. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and we deny Scarlett s motion for appointment of new counsel. ______________________________ -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.
