United States v. Curtis Lyles

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 4, 2024
Docket24-2099
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Curtis Lyles (United States v. Curtis Lyles) 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. Curtis Lyles, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-2099 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Curtis S. Lyles

Defendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: October 1, 2024 Filed: October 4, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRASZ, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Lyles received a 192-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to firearm and drug offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). In the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his sentence. An Anders brief suggests it is substantively unreasonable and the district court 1 abused its discretion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and covers these issues. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within its scope, 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); see also United States v. Cooney, 875 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n appellate waiver bars an appeal after resentencing.”). We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw. ______________________________

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-

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. Scott
627 F.3d 702 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. John Robert Andis
333 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Larry Cooney
875 F.3d 414 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Curtis Lyles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-curtis-lyles-ca8-2024.