United States of America v. Kachimbe Mukanzu, also known as Kash

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3253
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kachimbe Mukanzu, also known as Kash
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: May 15, 2023
Filed: May 18, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kachimbe Mukanzu appeals the judgment entered by the district court1 after
he pleaded guilty to sex-trafficking and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement
1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

containing an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the denial of
Mukanzu’s motions to withdraw his guilty plea, to dismiss based on selective
prosecution, and to appoint substitute counsel. Counsel also questions the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence. In a pro se brief and a supplemental
memorandum, Mukanzu additionally raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
and prosecutorial misconduct.
We conclude that Mukanzu knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea
agreement and appeal waiver, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying him permission to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Green,
521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); see also United States v.
Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (one important way district
court can ensure that plea agreement and appeal waiver are entered into knowingly
and voluntarily is to properly question defendant about decision to enter into
agreement and to waive right to appeal). Further, Mukanzu has not identified any
support in the record for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and to the extent he
raises ineffective-assistance claims independent from his challenge to the knowing
and voluntary nature of his plea, we decline to address them on direct appeal. See
United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (in general,
ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal). Finally, we conclude
that the appeal waiver is enforceable as to the remaining arguments raised. See
Andis, 333 F.3d at 889-92 (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope
of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and
waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Mukanzu’s motion to
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

withdraw his plea, dismiss the remainder of the appeal based on the appeal waiver,
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --