United States v. Brandon Cuddihe, No. 19-2054 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam. Before Gruender, Beam, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. The record is insufficient to establish that Cuiddihe knowingly and voluntarily entered into agreement waiving right to appeal. Nonetheless, the district court did not imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence and the sentence is affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2054 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Brandon David Cuddihe lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: January 28, 2020 Filed: February 13, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Brandon Cuddihe appeals after he pleaded guilty to child pornography offenses and the district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Cuddihe’s prison term is substantively unreasonable but that any review is foreclosed by the appeal waiver in the written plea agreement. Cuddihe has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After careful review, we decline to enforce the appeal waiver, as the record is insufficient to establish that Cuddihe knowingly and voluntarily entered into it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890–91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 515–16 (8th Cir. 2011).2 Nevertheless, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing substantive reasonableness); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2016) (if defendant was sentenced below Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 2 In light of our ultimate disposition, we need not decide whether counsel’s brief arguing to the contrary was inadequate under Anders. See Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268–69 (8th Cir. 1989). -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.
