United States of America v. Bernard Gleghorn

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-4569
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Bernard Gleghorn
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: January 10, 2018
Filed: March 2, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Bernard Gleghorn pleaded guilty in the district court to being a felon in1
possession of a firearm. Gleghorn appeals his within-Guidelines sentence of 36
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern1
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

months’ imprisonment as substantively unreasonable. His plea agreement contained
an appeal waiver. See Guilty Plea Agreement at 7, United States v. Gleghorn, No.
4:15-cr-00532-CDP (E.D Mo. Jul. 6, 2016), ECF No. 38 (“[T]he Defendant hereby
waives all rights to appeal all sentencing issues other than Criminal History.”).
We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and should be enforced. Our
review of the record shows that Gleghorn 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). Furthermore, Gleghorn’s argument that his sentence is
substantively unreasonable falls within the scope of the waiver, and no miscarriage
of justice will result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal
waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(discussing enforcement of appeal waivers).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --