U.S. v. PEINADO-JUAREZ, 250 Fed.Appx. 758 (8th Cir. 2007)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Manuel PEINADO-JUAREZ, Appellant.

No. 06-3255.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.Submitted: October 4, 2007.
Filed: October 12, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Bruce Wellesley Gillan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Manuel Peinado-Juarez, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Kevin E. Dellett, Olathe, KS, for Appellant.

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.

Manuel Peinado-Juarez (Peinado-Juarez) appeals the 37-month prison sentence the district court[1] imposed after he pled guilty to reentering the United States illegally after having been deported following an aggravated felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), his counsel argues (1) Peinado-Juarez’s sentence was improperly calculated under the Guidelines, and (2) the sentence is too harsh. In a pro se supplemental brief, Peinado-Juarez argues the court improperly relied on his prior state drug sentence in determining his offense level and criminal history category because the sentence was imposed more than 15 years before his involvement in the instant offense.

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Peinado-Juarez’s plea agreement: the plea colloquy reflects that Peinado-Juarez understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070,

Page 759

1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300
(1988), for any nonfrivolous issue not covered by the waiver, we find none. Accordingly, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

[1] The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

PORTER v. UNITED STATES, 260 F. 1 (1919)

Porter v. United States, 260 F. 1 (1919) Aug. 19, 1919 United States Court of…

5 years ago

IN RE AUSTIN, No. 17-6024 (8th Cir. 4/9/2018)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-6024 ___________________________ In re:…

8 years ago

CITY OF KENNETT, MO v. EPA, No. 17-1713 (8th Cir. 4/9/2018)

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1713 ___________________________ City of…

8 years ago

UNITED STATES v. RITCHISON, No. 17-1238 (8th Cir. 4/4/2018)

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1238 ___________________________ United States…

8 years ago

WRIGHT v. RL LIQUOR, No. 17-1133 (8th Cir. 4/4/2018)

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1133 ___________________________ Jabari Wright…

8 years ago

UNITED STATES v. DANIEL, NO. 16-4534 (8th Cir. 4/4/2018)

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4534 ___________________________ United States…

8 years ago