Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
15-1900•United States of America v. Said Ali
15-1900Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.08.2017
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4215
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Said Ali
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: August 15, 2017
Filed: August 17, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this direct criminal appeal, Said Ali challenges the sentence the district court 1
imposed after he pleaded guilty to a gun charge, pursuant to a written plea agreement
1The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
which included an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue that the
district court erred by denying Ali’s motion to suppress evidence prior to his plea. Ali
has also filed a pro se supplemental brief, challenging the use of a prior attempted
assault conviction as a crime of violence for the purpose of determining his base
offense level.
We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be enforced as to the
issues on appeal, because our review of the record demonstrates that Ali entered into
the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v.
United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); the arguments fall within the scope
of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver,
see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United
States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). We have
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw,
and dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.