UNITED STATES v. BOWERS (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eibony BOWERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2244

Decided: March 13, 2020

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. William M. (Marc) Ermine, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant. Eibony Bowers, Alderson, WV, pro se. Courtney R. Pratten, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

[Unpublished]

Eibony Bowers appeals the sentence the district court imposed ¹ after she pleaded guilty to fraud offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. Her counsel seeks leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Bowers has filed a pro se brief also challenging the reasonableness of her sentence.

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) (stating that this court reviews 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 the 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 for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.