United States v. James Richards

331 F. App'x 431
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 28, 2009
Docket08-2621
StatusUnpublished

This text of 331 F. App'x 431 (United States v. James Richards) 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. James Richards, 331 F. App'x 431 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James C. Richards appeals the prison sentence that the distinct court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to accepting funds intended for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and converting the funds to his own use, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641; attempting to defeat the assessment of tax, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; making false statements to a United States agency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and fabricating documents purportedly from the IRS to conceal theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), seeking to withdraw and arguing that the district court erred in sentencing Richards above the applicable Guidelines range and in failing to rule on all of Richards’s objections to the presentence report. In a pro se supplemental brief, Richards argues that he should have received a shorter sentence, and he contests the veracity of some of the victims’ testimony at sentencing.

Richards’s written plea agreement contains a valid appeal waiver which encompasses the argument that he and his counsel raise on appeal. Further, we conclude that the waiver is enforceable, and that enforcing it would not cause a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and finding no non-frivolous issues not covered by the appeal waiver, we enforce the waiver and dismiss this appeal. We grant counsel leave to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions lor rehearing and for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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. John Robert Andis
333 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F. App'x 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-richards-ca8-2009.