United States v. Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez, No. 18-2289 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant executed valid, applicable and enforceable appeals waivers in this two cases, and his appeals are dismissed; with respect to the one issue not covered by the plea waiver - that consecutive sentences violated a binding plea agreement - that plea agreement term was explicitly a recommendation, and this issue is not arguable on the merits. [ April 18, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2261 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 18-2289 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2019 Filed: April 19, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. These consolidated criminal appeals arise out of separate indictments but combined plea and sentencing proceedings. Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez pleaded guilty--under plea agreements containing appeal waivers--to casting a fraudulent ballot, and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. The district court1 sentenced him to consecutive prison terms for these offenses. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of Guidelines enhancements and the reasonableness of the consecutive prison terms. Counsel has also moved to withdraw. Lleras-Rodriguez has filed a supplemental brief, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence, and arguing that the imposition of consecutive prison terms violated a binding plea agreement. As to the arguments in the briefs, except for Lleras-Rodriguez’s argument asserting a plea-agreement violation, we conclude that the appeal waivers are valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (stating that this court reviews the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). As to Lleras-Rodriguez’s argument asserting a plea-agreement violation, we conclude that it does not raise a legal point that is arguable on its merits, as the term of the plea agreement upon which he relies was explicitly a recommendation. See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining that plea agreements are contractual in nature and should be interpreted according to general contract principles); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (describing nonfrivolous legal points as “arguable on their merits”). 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waivers. We dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -3-
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.
