United States v. Joshua Fuertes, No. 17-1647 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. Anders case. Defendant voluntarily executed a valid plea waiver and the issues raised in the appeal fall within the scope of the waiver; the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ December 26, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1647 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Joshua R. Fuertes, also known as Rico lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: December 21, 2017 Filed: December 27, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Fuertes directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Fuertes’s sentence, but conceding that the appeal waiver is applicable and enforceable. Having considered Fuertes’s arguments, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). The record establishes that Fuertes entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, the arguments on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In addition, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. The appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ -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.
