United States v. Glenda Suhr, No. 14-3842 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam -Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's appeal waiver bars her appeal of her sentence and the court's restitution order; appeal dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3842 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Glenda Suhr, also known as Glennda Suhr, also known as Glenda Currier, also known as Deborah Halpin lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: July 15, 2015 Filed: July 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Glenda Suhr appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after she pleaded guilty to access device fraud. Her counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred in its loss calculation and by assessing a criminal history point for a prior conviction. We conclude that Suhr’s appeal waiver should be enforced and precludes review of her sentence and restitution order. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 780, 780–81 (8th Cir. 2007) (concluding that an appeal waiver barred a challenge to a restitution order because the defendant waived “all rights to appeal non-jurisdictional issues”); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–90 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (describing the circumstances under which the appellate court should enforce an appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. -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.
