United States v. Luis Nieto-Acosta

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-2970

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Luis Gerardo Nieto-Acosta

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

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

____________

Submitted: February 19, 2025 Filed: February 24, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Gerardo Nieto-Acosta appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges, and the district court1 imposed the statutory minimum prison sentence. His

1 The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court should have sua sponte set aside Nieto’s guilty plea because he had alleged in a pro se filing that his plea counsel coerced him into pleading guilty.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Nieto’s argument is not cognizable in this appeal, because he did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (to the 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 guilty plea). In any event, the record demonstrates that Nieto-Acosta entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (one important way district court can ensure plea agreement is knowing and voluntary is to question defendant about decision to enter into agreement); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________