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)
15-3680•United States of America v. Vinh Xuan Ngo
15-3680Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJun 30, 2017
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3890
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Vinh Xuan Ngo
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: June 6, 2017
Filed: June 6, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Vinh
Xuan Ngo pleaded guilty to charges of aiding and abetting bank fraud and aggravated
-- 1 of 2 --
identity theft. The district court sentenced him below the calculated Guidelines1
range to 114 months in prison, and Ngo appeals. His counsel has moved to withdraw,
and in a brief submitted under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel
argues that the sentence is unreasonable, and asks that this court consider whether the
appeal waiver should be enforced in this case.
Having carefully considered the record, we conclude that the appeal waiver is
enforceable and should be enforced. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704
(8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review). At the plea hearing, the district court carefully and
thoroughly questioned Ngo to ensure that he was entering into the plea agreement and
the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, see Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d
699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); this appeal falls within the scope of the broadly worded
appeal waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver,
see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Further,
we have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), and find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss this
appeal.
______________________________
The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District1
of Minnesota.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.