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)
23-3019•United States of America v. Ublester Molina
23-3019Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30.01.2026
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2294
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ublester Molina
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: January 12, 2026
Filed: January 15, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ublester Molina appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to
a plea agreement that includes an appeal waiver, and the district court1 imposed the
1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
statutory maximum sentence. In counseled and pro se briefs, Molina argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. Molina also raises an ineffective-assistance-
of-counsel claim.
To the extent Molina challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea, we
conclude that the claim is not cognizable in this appeal because he did not move in
the district court to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029,
1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010). To the extent Molina has raised an ineffective-assistance
claim that does not challenge the voluntariness of his guilty plea, but requires
development of matters outside the record, this court declines to address the matter
in this appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th
Cir. 2006).
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the sentencing challenge. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,
704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en
banc).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.