United States v. Allyssa Samm, No. 18-1197 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's appeal waiver prevents her from challenging both the substantive reasonableness of her sentence and the district court's drug-quantity calculation; illegal-sentence and prosecutorial- misconduct claims rejected; claim of ineffective assistance would not be considered in this direct appeal. [ August 22, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1197 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Allyssa D. Samm lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 20, 2018 Filed: August 23, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Allyssa Samm directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug charge under a plea agreement 1 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. containing an appeal waiver. Samm’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Samm’s sentence, as well as raising the legality of Samm’s sentence, the court’s drug-quantity calculation, the prosecutor’s conduct during trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel as other possible issues for us to consider on appeal. None of the issues raised in Samm’s Anders brief has merit. The appeal waiver, which Samm entered into voluntarily and knowingly, prevents her from challenging both the substantive reasonableness of her sentence and the drug-quantity calculation on appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers). Enforcing the appeal waiver would not “constitute a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 894. Although the illegal-sentence and prosecutorial-misconduct claims are outside the scope of the appeal waiver, Samm’s below-Guidelines-range sentence is legal, see Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (explaining that an unlawful or illegal sentence is one imposed without, or in excess of, statutory authority), and nothing in the record indicates that the prosecutor committed misconduct at Samm’s trial. Finally, we do not consider Samm’s ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claims because this is not an “exceptional” case in which the district court “has [already] developed a record” on the claims or a “plain miscarriage of justice” would result from our failure to address them on direct appeal. United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -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.
