United States of America v. Willie Harbour

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3042
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Willie Harbour
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: January 16, 2024
Filed: January 19, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Willie Harbour received a 57-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty
to a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The two
issues identified in an Anders brief are the enforceability of an appeal waiver in his
plea agreement and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief questions the validity
of the guilty plea itself.
The challenge to the plea falls outside the appeal waiver, see United States v.
Schneider, 40 F.4th 849, 853 (8th Cir. 2022), but we conclude that Harbour acted
voluntarily and knowingly in entering into it and the district court1 had a reasonable
basis to determine that he committed the offense, see United States v. Frook, 616
F.3d 773, 775–76 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for plain error when the defendant did
not object); see also United States v. Christenson, 653 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2011)
(explaining that facts from the plea agreement and presentence report can establish
a factual basis). And then, by virtue of the waiver itself, Harbour relinquished the
right to challenge the reasonableness of the sentence. 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 its scope, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing it would not result in a miscarriage of justice).
Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non-frivolous issues exist.2 See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).
We accordingly affirm for the most part, dismiss the sentencing challenge, grant
counsel permission to withdraw, and deny the motion to appoint new counsel as
moot.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
2 We did, however, spot a clerical mistake, so we modify the judgment to
reflect that Harbour was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2106.

-- 2 of 2 --