United States v. Chloe DaSilva

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-3558
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-3558 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Chloe M. DaSilva

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: March 20, 2025 Filed: March 25, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Chloe DaSilva appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after she pleaded guilty to simple assault of a flight attendant under a written plea agreement

1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. containing an appeal waiver. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

It appears that DaSilva has been released from prison since the time she filed this appeal, and thus any appeal of her prison sentence is now moot.2 See United States v. Williams, 483 F.3d 889, 889 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (appeal of defendant’s sentence was moot because she was released during pendency of appeal, and effective relief was thus impossible). To the extent DaSilva appeals the term of supervised release imposed by the district court, however, the appeal is barred by the appeal waiver. 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 independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss this appeal. ______________________________

2 See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed March 14, 2025).

-2-