United States v. Billy Scarlett

348 F. App'x 188
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 14, 2009
Docket08-2069
StatusUnpublished

This text of 348 F. App'x 188 (United States v. Billy Scarlett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Billy Scarlett, 348 F. App'x 188 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Billy Marie Scarlett (Scarlett) appeals the 240-month prison sentence the district *189 court 1 imposed after Scarlett pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. Her counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), questioning whether the sentence was unreasonable, and moved to withdraw. Scar-lett filed a supplemental brief raising the same argument.

Scarlett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement containing a waiver of the right to appeal her conviction and sentence. We enforce that appeal waiver here. The record reflects Scarlett understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal waiver; the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result from enforcing it. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing an appeal waiver in an Anders case).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Scarlett’s motion for appointment of new counsel.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. John Robert Andis
333 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
348 F. App'x 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-billy-scarlett-ca8-2009.