United States v. Peter Ihnken, No. 18-3335 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant executed a valid, enforceable and applicable appeal waiver as part of his guilty plea, and this appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3335 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Peter William Ihnken lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Fargo ____________ Submitted: September 5, 2019 Filed: September 10, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Peter Ihnken appeals his conviction and the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense, pursuant to a plea agreement 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation in the District of North Dakota. containing a partial appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising issues regarding whether Ihnken’s prior felony convictions prohibited him from possessing firearms or ammunition; whether his sentence should have been enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act; and whether he was misled, at the change-of-plea hearing, into believing he would receive a shorter prison term. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable, and that it applies to the issues counsel raises on appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave 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.
