United States v. Matthew Gikas, No. 15-1606 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The appeal waiver in defendant's guilty plea covers the sentencing issues raised in this appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1606 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Matthew Nicholas Gikas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 26, 2015 Filed: October 29, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Matthew Gikas directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to making and subscribing a false tax return. His counsel has 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Gikas has submitted a pro se brief in which he argues that his sentence was disproportionate to that of his codefendants and that prosecutors lied to the Grand Jury and prosecuted him for impermissible reasons. We conclude that Gikas’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). 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.
