United States v. Roosevelt Hunter

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3776 ___________

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Roosevelt Hunter, Jr., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________

Submitted: March 26, 1997

Filed: March 31, 1997 ___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Roosevelt Hunter, Jr. challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearms offenses. The government argues the appeal should be dismissed because Hunter agreed in the plea agreement to waive his right to appeal. We agree. We have held that a promise made in a plea agreement is binding on a defendant and may be specifically enforced by the government. See United States v. His Law, 85 F.3d

1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). We therefore specifically enforce Hunter’s promise against him by dismissing his appeal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-