United States v. Shannon Barritt

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Shannon Barritt

415 F. App'x 737

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2011

Docket10-3390

StatusUnpublished

This text of 415 F. App'x 737 (United States v. Shannon Barritt) 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. Shannon Barritt, 415 F. App'x 737 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Shannon Barritt agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court 1 sentenced Barritt to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison and 5 years supervised release, in accordance with the plea agreement. On appeal, counsel seeks to withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the plea was coerced.

We will enforce the appeal waiver. Bar-ritt’s plea hearing testimony shows that her plea was knowing and voluntary, and entered into with full knowledge of the appeal waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (criteria for enforcing appeal waiver); *738 United States v. Greger, 98 F.3d 1080, 1081 (8th Cir.1996) (so long as sentence is not in conflict with negotiated plea agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal sentence will be enforced); see also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (solemn declarations in open court carry strong presumption of verity); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 88, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Barritt about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Shannon Barritt agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court 1 sentenced Barritt to the statutory minimum of 120 months in prison and 5 years supervised release, in accordance with the plea agreement. On appeal, counsel seeks to withdraw, and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the plea was coerced.

We will enforce the appeal waiver. Bar-ritt’s plea hearing testimony shows that her plea was knowing and voluntary, and entered into with full knowledge of the appeal waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (criteria for enforcing appeal waiver); *738 United States v. Greger, 98 F.3d 1080, 1081 (8th Cir.1996) (so long as sentence is not in conflict with negotiated plea agreement, knowing and voluntary waiver of right to appeal sentence will be enforced); see also Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (solemn declarations in open court carry strong presumption of verity); United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 88, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Barritt about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 F. App'x 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shannon-barritt-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack