UNITED STATES v. VANDUNK (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demont M. VANDUNK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-2413

Decided: March 18, 2020

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. Ronna A. Holloman-Hughes, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant. Alison D. Dunning, Asst U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

[Unpublished]

Demont Vandunk appeals the sentence imposed by the district court ¹ after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for 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), challenging the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (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 under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.