United States v. Keyessence Fountain, No. 14-2176 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant waived her right of appeal as part of the plea agreement in her case, and her appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2176 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Keyessence Fountain lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: December 2, 2014 Filed: December 5, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Keyessence Fountain directly appeals after she pled guilty to robbery and firearm charges, and the district court1 sentenced her below the calculated Guidelines 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. range. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in Fountain’s plea agreement. After careful de novo review, we enforce the appeal waiver, because the record shows Fountain entered into both the plea agreement and the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the 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); 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. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Fountain about the procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition 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.
