United States v. Tara Childress, No. 17-1307 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right of appeal and this challenge to his sentence is within the scope of his waiver; the appeal is dismissed. [ August 10, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1307 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Tara D. Childress lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 4, 2017 Filed: August 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges ____________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal, Tara Childress challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pleaded guilty to drug and robbery charges, pursuant 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. to a written plea agreement which included an appeal waiver. Her 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. Childress has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that counsel was ineffective and disputing the Guidelines calculations; and a motion for appointment of new counsel. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Childress 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 decline to address the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal, as it would be better litigated in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006). 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.
