United States v. Felton Gooseberry

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Felton Gooseberry

162 F. App'x 687

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2006

Docket04-3596

StatusUnpublished

This text of 162 F. App'x 687 (United States v. Felton Gooseberry) 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. Felton Gooseberry, 162 F. App'x 687 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Felton Gooseberry appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Gooseberry has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that his sentence should be vacated under Blakely *688 v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531,159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Gooseberry’s written plea agreement: the district court conducted a proper Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy and discussed the appeal waiver with Gooseberry, who affirmed that his plea was voluntary and that he understood the plea agreement and the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). The waiver also covered any issues under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034-35 (8th Cir.) (right to appeal under Booker is among rights waived by broad appeal waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate Booker ruling), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 469, 163 L.Ed.2d 357 (2005).

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 have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Felton Gooseberry appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(iii). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Gooseberry has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that his sentence should be vacated under Blakely *688 v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531,159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Gooseberry’s written plea agreement: the district court conducted a proper Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy and discussed the appeal waiver with Gooseberry, who affirmed that his plea was voluntary and that he understood the plea agreement and the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997, 124 S.Ct. 501, 157 L.Ed.2d 398 (2003). The waiver also covered any issues under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See United States v. Reeves, 410 F.3d 1031, 1034-35 (8th Cir.) (right to appeal under Booker is among rights waived by broad appeal waiver, even if defendant did not anticipate Booker ruling), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 469, 163 L.Ed.2d 357 (2005).

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 have found no nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. App'x 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-felton-gooseberry-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack