United States v. Ryan Lee Balster, No. 18-2340 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's knowing and voluntary appeal waiver covered the sentencing issues he raises, and the appeal waiver is enforced; argument that the case should be considered under the miscarriage-of-justice exception to enforcing appeal waivers rejected. [ February 22, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2340 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Ryan Lee Balster lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: February 13, 2019 Filed: February 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ryan Lee Balster directly appeals the within-Guidelines sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to attempting to 1 1 The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. entice a minor. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal based on the appeal waiver. Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the court should not enforce the appeal waiver because Balster’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the appeal waiver is enforceable, as the record demonstrates that Balster 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) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity). Counsel’s arguments fall within the scope of 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) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). To the extent counsel asks this court to reconsider the miscarriage-of-justice exception to enforcing appeal waivers, or to make a special exception in this case, the court finds no basis to do so. See Andis, 333 F.3d at 892 (miscarriage-of-justice exception). This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues. The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -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.
