United States v. Markeith Thomas, No. 16-1469 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Benton, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. The appeal waiver is enforced, preventing consideration of his sentencing claim. [ August 05, 2016

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1469 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Markeith Deshun Thomas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: August 2, 2016 Filed: August 8, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Markeith Deshun Thomas directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to possessing and selling stolen firearms in violation of 18 1 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal. Thomas’s appeal waiver should be enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. 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). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The appeal is dismissed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.