United States of America v. Coreena D. Velasco, also known as Coreena D. Mediano

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2078
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Coreena D. Velasco, also known as Coreena D. Mediano
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: December 1, 2025
Filed: December 23, 2025
[Published]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Coreena Velasco appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after she
pleaded guilty to drug and money laundering offenses pursuant to a plea agreement
1The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 3 --

containing an appeal waiver. At the change of plea hearing, the district court directed
attention to the appeal waiver, and Velasco confirmed that she understood she was
giving up the right to appeal or collaterally attack the finding of guilt and her
sentence except under certain circumstances.
At sentencing, the district court overruled Velasco’s objection to the
presentence report’s drug quantity determination, resulting in an advisory guidelines
sentencing range of 292-365 months imprisonment, and imposed a concurrent 180-
month sentence on both counts. Velasco timely filed a pro se motion to appoint new
counsel for an appeal because she wished to appeal based on ineffective assistance
of trial counsel, an issue that is included in the plea agreement’s enumerated
exceptions to the appeal waiver. Counsel moved to withdraw and filed a notice of
appeal with these motions pending in the district court.
We appointed trial counsel to represent Velasco on appeal. Counsel moved to
substitute counsel because Velasco wished to raise a claim of ineffective assistance.
We denied the motion without prejudice, explaining that if Velasco was dissatisfied
with appointed counsel, she must file a motion for substitution of counsel, stating her
reasons for dissatisfaction and the issues she wishes to raise on appeal. Counsel then
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that guidelines
errors make the sentence substantively unreasonable, and moved for leave to
withdraw because the appeal waiver applies to those issues and “no non-frivolous
issues exist outside the scope of the appellate waiver.”
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issues raised in counsel’s Anders brief. See United States v.
Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Ms. Velasco has not filed a
supplemental appeal brief, nor has she moved for substitution of counsel, stating her
reasons for dissatisfaction and the issues she wishes to raise on appeal, as our order
denying counsel’s motion to substitute required. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

based on the valid appeal waiver, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and direct that
Velasco be allowed to raise any and all claims of ineffective assistance of trial and
appellate counsel in a timely motion or petition for postconviction relief.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --