United States of America v. David R. Craig

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2384
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
David R. Craig
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: April 18, 2025
Filed: April 23, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
David Craig appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded
guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

waiver. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing whether the sentence is
substantively unreasonable. Craig filed a pro se brief alleging that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was prejudiced because the prosecutor
did not move for a downward departure.
Initially, we decline to consider Craig’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th
Cir. 2002) (in general, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal;
such claim is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Upon careful review, we
conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the remaining
issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.
2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States
v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (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 and grant counsel leave to
withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --