United States of America v. Cristino Martinez Padilla

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-2332
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cristino Martinez Padilla
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: November 24, 2021
Filed: December 1, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cristino Martinez Padilla pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846. As part of the
plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal unless the district court1 gave him a
1The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
sentence of more than 365 months in prison. It did not do so. Nevertheless, in an
Anders brief, Padilla’s counsel claims that the appeal waiver is unenforceable, the
sentence is substantively unreasonable, and that Padilla should get another shot at
qualifying for the so-called “safety valve” that would make him eligible for a shorter
sentence. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f) (allowing a drug-conspiracy defendant to receive a sentence below the
statutory minimum if, among other things, the sentencing court finds that he
“truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence” about the
conspiracy).
Upon careful review, we conclude that the waiver is both enforceable and
applicable to the issues raised on appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702,
704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United
States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an
appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). We have also
independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues
exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --