United States of America v. Daniel Robert Beaty

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1355
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Daniel Robert Beaty
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: January 28, 2026
Filed: February 4, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Beaty appeals the below-Guidelines-range sentence the district court1
imposed after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea
agreement containing an appeal waiver. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
§ 1291, this court dismisses this appeal in part based on the appeal waiver, and
otherwise affirms.
Counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Beaty has filed a pro se
brief raising additional challenges to the conviction and sentence.
Initially, this court concludes that, by waiving his right to appeal the
conviction, Beaty waived his right to raise challenges to the length of the traffic stop
that led to his arrest and the validity of the statute of conviction. See United States
v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); 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 waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not result in
miscarriage of justice). As to the pro se sentencing arguments—which are not
covered by the appeal waiver—this court concludes that there was no error in
including a 2-level increase for possessing a firearm. See United States v. Moore,
565 F.3d 435, 437 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain error review); United States v. Peroceski,
520 F.3d 886, 888–89 (8th Cir. 2008). While Beaty challenges his designation as a
career offender, the presentence report noted but did not ultimately apply the
enhancement.
As to his challenges to the drug quantity, the district court properly relied on
testimony from an investigating officer regarding a co-defendant’s proffer
statements, and messages and photographs of controlled substances taken from
Beaty’s cell phone. See United States v. Karam, 37 F.3d 1280, 1286 (8th Cir. 1994)
(district court’s findings on witness credibility when making drug-quantity
determination are virtually unreviewable on appeal). In any event, the district court
noted that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the drug quantity.
See United States v. Jackson, 594 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 2010) (where there is
clear record that district court intended to impose same sentence and took into

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
account potential impact of specific sentencing error alleged, it is appropriate to treat
alleged error as harmless).
As to the argument in the Anders brief, this court concludes that the district
court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing sentence under
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; discussing substantive reasonableness);
United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when
the district court has varied below the Guidelines range, it is “nearly inconceivable”
that the court abused its discretion in not varying further).
This court has reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal
waiver. The appeal is dismissed in part, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --