United States v. Derrill Watt

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 22, 2019
Docket18-3232
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Derrill Watt (United States v. Derrill Watt) 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. Derrill Watt, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3232 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Derrill Watt

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: July 15, 2019 Filed: July 22, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Derrill Watt pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm he knew was stolen, 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence unless it exceeded his Sentencing Guidelines range. The 80-month sentence the district court1 imposed was below his 84- to 105-month Guidelines range. In an Anders brief, Watt’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and identifies the applicability of a four-level Guidelines enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense as an issue on appeal. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); see also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In a pro se brief, Watt makes the same argument.

We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010). Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable and that it is applicable to the issue raised on appeal. See 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 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 and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw. _______________________________________________

1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern 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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Derrill Watt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-derrill-watt-ca8-2019.