United States v. Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2019
• Docket: 18-2261
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2261 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 18-2289 ___________________________

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: April 16, 2019 Filed: April 19, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated criminal appeals arise out of separate indictments but combined plea and sentencing proceedings. Leonardo Lleras-Rodriguez pleaded guilty--under plea agreements containing appeal waivers--to casting a fraudulent ballot, and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns. The district court1 sentenced him to consecutive prison terms for these offenses. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of Guidelines enhancements and the reasonableness of the consecutive prison terms. Counsel has also moved to withdraw. Lleras-Rodriguez has filed a supplemental brief, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence, and arguing that the imposition of consecutive prison terms violated a binding plea agreement.

As to the arguments in the briefs, except for Lleras-Rodriguez’s argument asserting a plea-agreement violation, we conclude that the appeal waivers are valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (stating that this court reviews the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). As to Lleras-Rodriguez’s argument asserting a plea-agreement violation, we conclude that it does not raise a legal point that is arguable on its merits, as the term of the plea agreement upon which he relies was explicitly a recommendation. See United States v. Sanchez, 508 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 2007) (explaining that plea agreements are contractual in nature and should be interpreted according to general contract principles); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (describing nonfrivolous legal points as “arguable on their merits”).

1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2- Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waivers.

We dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________

-3-