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)
23-3211•United States of America v. Jeremy M. Dobson
23-3211Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitAug 30, 2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3211
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeremy M. Dobson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri
____________
Submitted: August 27, 2024
Filed: August 30, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeremy Dobson appeals after he pled guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, to kidnapping, carjacking,
-- 1 of 2 --
and firearm offenses, and the district court1 imposed a sentence within the agreed-
upon range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), relaying Dobson’s contention that
proceedings related to his mental competency were used for purposes of delay and
giving the government an advantage in building its case against him.
Upon careful review, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and
applicable to this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.
2010) (reviewing validity and applicability of appeal waiver de novo); United States
v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if
appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into
plea agreement and waiver, and it would not result in miscarriage of justice). We
have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver,
and grant counsel leave to withdraw. We also grant counsel’s motion to supplement
the record.
______________________________
1The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.