The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-3434•United States of America v. Shelton E. Lewis, also known as C, also known as Steve Johnson
14-3434Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMar 31, 2016
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2992
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Shelton E. Lewis, also known as C, also known as Steve Johnson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: March 18, 2016
Filed: March 23, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Shelton E. Lewis directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1
after he pleaded guilty to extortionate communications and money laundering. His
The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Lewis has submitted
a pro se brief in which he argues that the district court abused its discretion in
imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, because the Guidelines’ enhancements
accounted for the seriousness of the offense, and the court did not adequately discuss
the section 3553(a) factors. We conclude that Lewis’s appeal waiver should be
enforced and prevents consideration of his claims. 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, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope
of waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily,
and no miscarriage of justice would result). Having independently reviewed the
record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for
appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and we grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.