The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-3021•Shirley Walker v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction
08-3021Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitDec 31, 2009
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-2030/2039
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, * Appeals from the United States
* District Court for the
v. * Western District of Missouri.
*
Jeffrey Dewain Dueker, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 16, 2009
Filed: December 21, 2009
___________
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Dueker appeals his sentence of 252 months in prison and ten years of
supervised release imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to two counts
of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and one count
of being a felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and 924(a)(2). His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the sentence as unreasonable. This challenge, however, falls
within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in Dueker’s plea agreement. Because
1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
the record shows that Dueker knowingly and voluntarily entered into the waiver and
the plea agreement, and because we see nothing to suggest that enforcement of the
waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice, we will enforce the appeal waiver in
these consolidated appeals. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th
Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court will enforce appeal waiver in plea agreement when appeal
falls within scope of waiver, both waiver and plea agreement were entered into
knowingly and voluntarily, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of
justice).
Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not encompassed by the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss
the appeals.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.