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)
19-1238•United States of America v. Peter William Ihnken
19-1238Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitSep 27, 2019
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-3335
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Peter William Ihnken
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Fargo
____________
Submitted: September 5, 2019
Filed: September 10, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Peter Ihnken appeals his conviction and the sentence the district court imposed1
after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession offense, pursuant to a plea agreement
The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the1
Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation in the District of North Dakota.
-- 1 of 2 --
containing a partial appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising issues
regarding whether Ihnken’s prior felony convictions prohibited him from possessing
firearms or ammunition; whether his sentence should have been enhanced under the
Armed Career Criminal Act; and whether he was misled, at the change-of-plea
hearing, into believing he would receive a shorter prison term. We conclude that the
appeal waiver is valid and enforceable, and that it applies to the issues counsel raises
on appeal. 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, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal
falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea
agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of
justice).
Having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988),
we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.