United States v. Jose Zavala, No. 18-3072 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Stras and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. Defendant executed a valid, enforceable and applicable appeal waiver and his appeal of his sentence is dismissed. [ May 21, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3072 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jose Luis Chavarin Zavala lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: May 15, 2019 Filed: May 22, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Zavala pleaded guilty to the distribution of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal unless the district court 1 imposed greater than a ten-year sentence, the statutory minimum for his offense. See id. § 841(b)(1)(A). It did not do so. Nevertheless, in an Anders brief, Zavala’s counsel raises the substantive reasonableness of the sentence as a potential issue on appeal and asks us to give Zavala another shot at qualifying for the so-called safety valve that would make him eligible for a shorter sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (allowing a drug-conspiracy defendant to receive a sentence below the statutory minimum if, among other things, the sentencing court finds that he “truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence” concerning the conspiracy); see also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel also seeks permission to withdraw. We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to the issues raised on appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
