United States v. Joshua Parker, No. 22-1285 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Erickson, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. The appeal waiver in the case is enforceable and the issue raised is within the scope of the appeal waiver. The appeal is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1285 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Joshua J. Parker lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: September 16, 2022 Filed: October 4, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joshua Parker directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery pursuant to a plea agreement 1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Parker’s prison sentence. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver). Our review of the record demonstrates that Parker entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the sentence falls within the scope of the waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (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). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Parker’s motion for appointment of new counsel as moot. ______________________________ -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.
