United States v. Clifton Hudson, No. 17-1158 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Appeal waiver enforced and appeal dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1158 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Clifton Hudson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2017 Filed: October 25, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Clifton Hudson challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. to a robbery charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging his career-offender designation and arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Hudson 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 argument falls 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, and we 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.
