Skip to main content

UNITED STATES v. BOYD (2018)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Todd K. BOYD Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1922

Decided: February 28, 2018

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey Q. McCarther, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee Todd K. Boyd, Pro Se Cynthia Marie Dodge, Cynthia M. Dodge, LLC, Lee's Summit, MO, for Defendant-Appellant

[Unpublished]

Todd Boyd directly appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Boyd’s sentence is unfair and unreasonable. Boyd has filed a pro se brief echoing his counsel’s argument. He also has filed a motion requesting appointment of new appellate counsel.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating 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 waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we deny Boyd’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.

Copied to clipboard