United States v. Said Ali, No. 16-4215 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's appeal waiver is enforced, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4215 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Said Ali lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: August 15, 2017 Filed: August 17, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Said Ali challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a gun charge, pursuant to a written plea agreement 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. which included an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue that the district court erred by denying Ali’s motion to suppress evidence prior to his plea. Ali has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, challenging the use of a prior attempted assault conviction as a crime of violence for the purpose of determining his base offense level. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be enforced as to the issues on appeal, because our review of the record demonstrates that Ali entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the arguments fall within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal. ______________________________ -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.
