United States of America v. Isaac Herrera

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1334
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Isaac Herrera
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: October 8, 2024
Filed: October 11, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Isaac Herrera appeals the district court’s1 judgment entered upon his guilty plea
to sexual exploitation of a child. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, then Chief Judge, now United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the district
court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, and arguing that the sentence is
substantively unreasonable and that the appeal waiver should not be enforced because
Herrera was incompetent to plead guilty and enter into the plea agreement.
Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
clearly err in finding that Herrera was competent during the plea hearing, as Herrera
confirmed that he understood the proceedings, and he conferred with his attorney
several times and testified that he was satisfied with his representation. See United
States v. Pacheco, 641 F.3d 970, 973-74 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rollins, 552
F.3d 739, 741-42 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Premachandra, 32 F.3d 346, 348
(8th Cir. 1994). As to the voluntariness of the plea, Herrera testified during the plea
hearing that nobody had threatened him and that his plea was voluntary; and he
moved to withdraw his plea more than 4 months after the court accepted it, and he did
not provide details of the alleged threats he received. See Voytik v. United States,
778 F.2d 1306, 1308 (8th Cir. 1985). Thus, we conclude that Herrera’s decision to
plead guilty and enter into the plea agreement was done knowingly and voluntarily,
and that the court did not err in denying his motion to withdraw the plea. See United
States v. Eller, 955 F.3d 730, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2020); United States v. Green, 521
F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008). We further conclude that the appeal waiver is valid,
enforceable, and applicable to the sentencing issue raised by counsel. See United
States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d
886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
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 outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying
Herrera’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, dismiss the remainder of the appeal, and
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --