United States v. Sammy Inarrito, No. 09-1471 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement with appeal waiver. Challenge to district court's determination of drug quantity and relevant conduct fall within scope of appeal waiver and enforcing waiver will not result in miscarriage of justice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1471 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Sammy Inarrito, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: January 6, 2010 Filed: February 4, 2010 ___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Sammy Inarrito pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he raises as issues whether Inarrito understood the full nature and extent of the language in the plea agreement, 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. including the appeal waiver; and whether the district court erred in making determinations at sentencing regarding drug quantity and relevant conduct. Upon careful review, we conclude that Inarrito knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, as he confirmed at the guiltyplea hearing that he had read and signed the plea agreement, that he had fully discussed the plea agreement with his attorney, that all the statements contained in the plea agreement were true, and that he understood the appeal waiver. Further, we conclude that the district court s determinations as to drug quantity and relevant conduct fall 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) (stating circumstances in which court will enforce 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). 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 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.
