United States v. Joshua Beardemphl, No. 17-1112 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant was properly classified as an armed career criminal for sentencing purposes; the appeal waiver in the case is valid, enforceable and applicable to the issues raised, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1112 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joshua Lee Beardemphl lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: October 2, 2017 Filed: November 7, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Beardemphl directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver, and the district court1 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. sentenced him as an armed career criminal. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, but arguing that Beardemphl’s sentence is illegal because he should not have been classified as an armed career criminal, and without such a classification, his sentence would be above the statutory maximum for his conviction. The government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver. We conclude that the sentence is not illegal because Beardemphl was properly classified as an armed career criminal. See United States v. Lindsey, 827 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2016) (Minnesota conviction for second-degree assault qualifies as violent felony under armed career criminal act). We further conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. 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, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, grant the government’s motion, 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.
