United States v. Timothy Sparks

489 F. App'x 143
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 9, 2012
Docket12-1879
StatusUnpublished

This text of 489 F. App'x 143 (United States v. Timothy Sparks) 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. Timothy Sparks, 489 F. App'x 143 (8th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Timothy Sparks pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and to a counterfeiting offense. The district court 1 sentenced him to two concurrent prison terms of 210 months, the bottom of the calculated Guidelines range. On appeal, Sparks’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), noting that Sparks entered into a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, but nevertheless arguing that the district court abused its discretion in declining to grant Sparks a downward departure or variance. Sparks has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Sparks’s ineffective-assistance claim is not within the scope of the appeal waiver, but this court declines to address it on direct appeal. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claim to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings).

Counsel’s arguments, however, are within the scope of the appeal waiver, and this court enforces the appeal waiver as to them. See United States v. Jennings, 662 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir.2011) (court should enforce appeal waiver if both waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, appeal is within waiver’s scope, and no miscarriage of justice would result); see also United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir.2009) (de novo review of whether defendant waived right to appeal sentence).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, outside the scope of the appeal waiver. This court dismisses the appeal and grants counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Jennings
662 F.3d 988 (Eighth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Azure
571 F.3d 769 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. McAdory
501 F.3d 868 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 F. App'x 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-timothy-sparks-ca8-2012.