United States v. William Salmons, No. 11-3882 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, and the appeal must be dismissed. [ June 08, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-3882 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. William Gene Salmons, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: June 7, 2012 Filed: June 12, 2012 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, William Salmons pleaded guilty to a drug offense. The district court1 sentenced him to 180 months in prison, which was 30 months below the calculated Guidelines range. On appeal, his counsel seeks leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in failing to vary even further below the Guidelines range. 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. We will enforce the appeal waiver because Salmons s appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the record shows that he entered into the plea agreement and the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (criteria for enforcing appeal waiver); United States v. EstradaBahena, 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 issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ - 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.
