United States v. Amjad Kattom, No. 15-1307 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant waived his right of appeal, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed; defendant's prison assignment is a matter committed to the Bureau of Prisons and the district court lacked authority to direct placement at any particular facility. [ November 02, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1307 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Amjad Kattom lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: October 29, 2015 Filed: November 4, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Amjad Kattom directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess controlled substances and analogues of 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. controlled substances with intent to distribute. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Kattom has submitted a pro se brief in which he asks for a shorter sentence and to be allowed to serve his sentence in Arkansas, rather than Mississippi. We conclude that Kattom’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claims. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (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). We note that the court lacked authority to order placement at any particular facility as the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is solely responsible for that decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (BOP shall designate place of prisoner’s imprisonment and determine eligibility for drug treatment). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion 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.
