United States v. Rashad Yasin Davis

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided December 13, 2019·No. 19-2422·Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

No. 19-2422

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Rashad Yasin Davis

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

Submitted: December 10, 2019 Filed: December 13, 2019

[Unpublished]

Before STRAS, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rashad Davis appeals from the below-Guidelines prison term imposed by the district court1 following his plea of guilty to criminal damage to property under a plea

1 The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.

Having conducted a de novo review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable in the circumstances of this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcement would not result in miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

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

United States v. Rashad Yasin Davis, (8th Cir. 2019).

United States v. Rashad Yasin Davis (United States v. Rashad Yasin Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Scott
627 F.3d 702 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. John Robert Andis
333 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)