United States v. Jesus Vazquez-Espinoza, No. 19-1712 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant's claim his plea was involuntary was not cognizable on appeal because he did not move to withdraw the plea in district court; as to the remaining issues, they are within the scope of defendant's knowing and voluntary appeal waiver. [ October 08, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1712 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Jesus Jonathan Vazquez-Espinoza, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City ____________ Submitted: October 1, 2019 Filed: October 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jesus Vazquez-Espinoza appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense, pursuant to a plea 1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), presenting as possible issues whether the appeal waiver is enforceable, and whether Vazquez-Espinoza’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. Vazquez-Espinoza has filed a pro se brief stating that his counsel forced him to plead guilty, and asserting a potential suppression issue. Initially, to the extent Vazquez-Espinoza asserts that his plea was involuntary, we conclude that such a claim is not cognizable on appeal because he did not move in the district court to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010). As to the remaining arguments in both the Anders brief and Vazquez-Espinoza’s pro se brief, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable because Vazquez-Espinoza knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, the arguments fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and 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.
