United States of America v. Luis Gerardo Nieto-Acosta

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2970
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Luis Gerardo Nieto-Acosta
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: February 19, 2025
Filed: February 24, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Luis Gerardo Nieto-Acosta appeals after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm
charges, and the district court1 imposed the statutory minimum prison sentence. His
1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court should have sua sponte
set aside Nieto’s guilty plea because he had alleged in a pro se filing that his plea
counsel coerced him into pleading guilty.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Nieto’s argument is not cognizable in
this appeal, because he did not move to withdraw his plea in the district court. See
United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (to the extent defendant
presents argument to establish his plea was unknowing or involuntary, such claim
would not be cognizable on direct appeal where he failed to move in district court to
withdraw guilty plea). In any event, the record demonstrates that Nieto-Acosta
entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Andis, 333
F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (one important way district court can
ensure plea agreement is knowing and voluntary is to question defendant about
decision to enter into agreement); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th
Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements made during plea hearing carry strong
presumption of verity).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The judgment of the
district court is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --