United States v. Kristian Price, No. 19-2105 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Erickson and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant executed a valid, applicable and enforceable appeal waiver as part of his guilty plea, and the appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2105 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kristian Bartholomew Price, Originally named Kristian Price lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: April 2, 2020 Filed: April 13, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kristian Price appeals after he pled guilty to a child pornography offense, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. sentenced him within the advisory range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the appeal waiver is unenforceable and Price’s sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court required supplemental briefing on these issues. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver 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). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -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.
