United States v. Eddie McBride, No. 22-2820 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal case. Anders appeal. Defendant's appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the sentencing issues raised in the appeal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2820 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Eddie Dean McBride lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado ____________ Submitted: February 21, 2023 Filed: March 1, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Eddie McBride pleaded guilty to distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of the plea agreement, McBride waived his right to appeal unless the district court1 gave him a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court sentenced McBride to 120 months in prison. McBride’s below-Guidelines sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). McBride’s counsel moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of McBride’s sentence. In a pro se brief and a supplemental memorandum, McBride challenges the district court’s calculation of the advisory Guidelines range. The government moved to dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver. Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); 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 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 the appeal based on the appeal waiver and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
