United States of America v. Allyssa D. Samm

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1197
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Allyssa D. Samm
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: August 20, 2018
Filed: August 23, 2018 (Corrected August 28, 2018)
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Allyssa Samm directly appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district
court imposed after she pleaded guilty to a drug charge under a plea agreement1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western1
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

containing an appeal waiver. Samm’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness
of Samm’s sentence, as well as raising the legality of Samm’s sentence, the court’s
drug-quantity calculation, the prosecutor’s conduct, and ineffective assistance of
counsel as other possible issues for us to consider on appeal.
None of the issues raised in Samm’s Anders brief has merit. The appeal
waiver, which Samm entered into voluntarily and knowingly, prevents her from
challenging both the substantive reasonableness of her sentence and the drug-quantity
calculation on appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.
2003) (en banc) (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers). Enforcing the
appeal waiver would not “constitute a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 894.
Although the illegal-sentence and prosecutorial-misconduct claims are outside
the scope of the appeal waiver, Samm’s below-Guidelines-range sentence is legal, see
Sun Bear v. United States, 644 F.3d 700, 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (explaining
that an unlawful or illegal sentence is one imposed without, or in excess of, statutory
authority), and nothing in the record indicates that the prosecutor committed
misconduct. Finally, we do not consider Samm’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims because this is not an “exceptional” case in which the district court “has
[already] developed a record” on the claims or a “plain miscarriage of justice” would
result from our failure to address them on direct appeal. United States v. Hernandez,
281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --