United States v. Gwendolyn Bellamy

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-3541
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-3541 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gwendolyn E. Bellamy

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

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

Submitted: March 13, 2026 Filed: March 18, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Gwendolyn Bellamy appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she pled guilty to embezzlement, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, then District Judge, now Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. waiver. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Bellamy has filed a pro se brief in which she appears to challenge the voluntariness of her plea.

Initially, we conclude that Bellamy is precluded from challenging the voluntariness of her guilty plea in this appeal because she did not move to withdraw her plea below. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (to extent defendant presents argument to establish his plea was unknowing or involuntary, such claim would not be cognizable on direct appeal where he failed to move in district court to withdraw his guilty plea).

We also conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in the Anders brief. 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 outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal. ______________________________

-2-