United States v. Denise Harris, No. 14-1978 (8th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The defendant waived her right of appeal as part of the plea agreement in the case, and the appeal is dismissed. [ November 10, 2014

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1978 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Denise Suzel Harris lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2014 Filed: November 12, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Denise Harris directly appeals after she pled guilty to conspiracy charges and the district court1 sentenced her below the calculated Guidelines range. Her counsel 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in Harris’s plea agreement and asserting arguments. Counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw. Harris has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging her sentence. 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) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We note that Harris’s statements under oath at the plea hearing showed that she 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) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity). 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. This appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.