United States of America v. Jermanine M. Smith

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2378
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jermanine M. Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: January 20, 2026
Filed: January 26, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jermanine Smith appeals after he pleaded guilty to carjacking and firearm
offenses pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.

-- 1 of 3 --

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court1 erred by denying
Smith’s motion to suppress identification evidence. Smith has filed a pro se brief
raising issues related to the jurisdictional element of the carjacking offense, the
identification evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
To begin, we conclude that there is no merit to Smith’s jurisdictional challenge.
See United States v. Johnson, 56 F.3d 947, 956 (8th Cir. 1995) (federal jurisdictional
element of carjacking offense requires that vehicle taken during armed incident had
been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce, which
requires nothing more than showing car, at some time, has been in interstate
commerce). To the extent that Smith is challenging the voluntariness of his guilty
plea, we conclude that he is precluded from making this argument on appeal, as 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) (claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary
is not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to
withdraw guilty plea). We decline to consider Smith’s ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d
824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).
As to the arguments challenging the identification evidence, we conclude that
the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. 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).
1The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John
M. Bodenhausen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

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 as to the arguments related
to the identification evidence, and affirm in all other respects. We also grant counsel
leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --