United States v. Antonio Jackson, No. 22-2347 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Grasz, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary and is applicable to the sentencing issues raised in the appeal; appeal dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2347 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Antonio Jackson lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: January 3, 2023 Filed: January 10, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Jackson directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a 1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. firearm pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, but suggesting the district court “plainly erred” in determining Jackson’s sentence. We conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable because Jackson entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the sentence falls 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) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (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). Furthermore, we have 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and 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.
