United States of America v. Carlos Maurice Harris

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-2200
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Carlos Maurice Harris
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: February 5, 2013
Filed: February 12, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Carlos Harris appeals the 300-month prison term the district court imposed1
after he pled guilty to a firearm-related charge. Harris’s counsel has moved to
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District1
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.
Harris entered his guilty plea pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea
agreement, which set forth the parties’ agreement to a term of imprisonment of no less
than 264 months and no greater than 360 months, and which contained Harris’s
waiver of his right to appeal his sentence except if the court were to impose a prison
term greater than 360 months. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the
appeal waiver precludes Harris’s challenge to his sentence because (1) counsel’s
argument falls squarely within the scope of the waiver, (2) the record shows that
Harris entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and
voluntarily, and (3) no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver.
See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (setting
forth criteria for enforcing appeal waiver); see also United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d
769, 772 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of whether defendant waived appeal right).
Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --