UNITED STATES v. GUZMAN ARAUJO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 20-2615

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed based on the valid and enforceable appeal waiver, and counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

Jorge Guzman-Araujo pleaded guilty to drug and immigration offenses under a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal. After sentencing, he appealed through counsel, who filed a brief challenging the sentence and requested permission to withdraw from representation. The appellate court examined whether the appeal waiver was valid, enforceable, and covered the issue Guzman-Araujo sought to raise.

The court determined that the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable based on the defendant's knowing and voluntary entry into the plea agreement and waiver, and that the challenged sentence fell within the scope of the waiver. The court also independently reviewed the record for any non-frivolous issues that might fall outside the waiver's scope and found none. Therefore, the waiver barred the appeal from proceeding.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Validity and enforceability of appeal waivers in plea agreements
Scope of appeal waiver as applied to sentencing challenges
Whether enforcement of the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice

Procedural posture

Guzman-Araujo appealed his sentence following a guilty plea under a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, with counsel seeking leave to withdraw and filing an Anders brief challenging the sentence.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Jorge Guzman-Araujo appeals the sentence the district court

imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug and immigration offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and we grant counsels motion to withdraw.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.