UNITED STATES v. SINNAWI (2021)

[Unpublished]

Michael Sinnawi pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute oxycodone. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence unless, as relevant here, it exceeded “the upper limit of the [advisory] [S]entencing [G]uideline[s] range” calculated by the district court.¹ The court gave him a 36-month sentence, which was within the range it calculated. In an Anders brief, Sinnawi's counsel raises the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and requests permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to the issue raised on appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.

PER CURIAM.