United States of America v. Kyle James Gipson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1583
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kyle James Gipson
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: August 23, 2024
Filed: August 28, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kyle Gipson appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to a child-exploitation offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an
1The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri, now retired.

-- 1 of 2 --

appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable but acknowledging the appeal waiver.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (“This court reviews de novo the validity and applicability
of [an] appeal waiver.”); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) (noting that 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).
We have 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’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --