United States v. James Bentley, Jr., No. 14-2766 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - Anders. Appeal waiver is enforced as to substantive claims raised on appeal and waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, outside the scope of the waiver, will not be addressed on direct criminal appeal because they involve matters as to which the record has not been developed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2766 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. James Byron Bentley, Jr., also known as Duda lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 17, 2015 Filed: April 27, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Bentley directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to federal drug and money laundering charges, and the district court1 sentenced him below the calculated 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Guidelines range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bentley has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010), we will enforce the appeal waiver in Bentley’s written plea agreement, because the substantive claims raised in this appeal fall within the scope of the waiver, Bentley’s testimony at the plea hearing shows that he entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and dismissing the appeal based on the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice, see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Although the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are excluded from the scope of the appeal waiver, we decline to review those claims in this direct criminal appeal because they involve matters as to which the record has not been developed. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, 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 subject to counsel informing appellant about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari. ______________________________
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.
