United States v. James King, No. 14-1935 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant executed an enforceable plea waiver and his appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1935 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. James Jerome King lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 22, 2014 Filed: October 23, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James King directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge, and the district court1 sentenced him to the statutory minimum, in accordance 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. with his written plea agreement. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in the plea agreement, and questioning the reasonableness of King s sentence. In addition, counsel seeks leave to withdraw. After careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (standard for enforcing appeal waivers); United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). First, we conclude that counsel s challenge to King s sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver. Second, based on King s statements under oath at the plea hearing, we are satisfied that he entered into both the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997). Third, we conclude that no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See Andis, 333 F.3d at 891-92. Finally, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
