United States v. Richard Beason, No. 16-4369 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Wollman, Loken, and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Appeal waiver is enforceable because the record supports that the plea agreement and appeal waiver were knowing and voluntary and no miscarriage of justice will result. [ August 04, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4369 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Richard Beason lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: July 31, 2017 Filed: August 7, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Richard Beason challenges the conviction and sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug charge, pursuant 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. to a written plea agreement 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 sentence was unreasonable. Beason has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the government violated his right to a speedy trial, that his sentence was improperly enhanced, and that there was an insufficient basis for his conspiracy conviction; and a motion for appointment of new counsel. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Beason 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). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, deny the motion for new counsel, and dismiss this 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.
