United States v. Nicholas Bass, No. 17-2720 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Colloton, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Appeal waiver in plea agreement was entered knowingly and voluntarily and arguments on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver; no miscarriage of justice will result. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims will not be addressed on direct appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2720 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Nicholas D. Bass lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: May 16, 2018 Filed: May 24, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Nicholas Bass directly appeals after pleading guilty in the district court1 to a drug offense, pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Bass 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. filed a pro se notice of appeal, in which he argued that counsel may have been ineffective. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by failing to sua sponte suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant of Bass’s residence; and for failing to sustain his objection to the drug-premises enhancement. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable, because our review of the record demonstrates that Bass 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). To the extent Bass is attempting to raise an ineffectiveassistance claim, we decline to address the 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, decline to address any ineffective-assistance claim, 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.
