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. Terry L. Christianson
23-3211Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitAug 30, 2024
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1528
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terry L. Christianson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: July 29, 2024
Filed: August 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Terry Christianson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing
1The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
-- 1 of 2 --
an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the sentencing issue raised in this appeal. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal
waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.
2003) (en banc) (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 decline to address Christianson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th
Cir. 2002).
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 waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver,
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.