United States of America v. Lawrence Courtney Lawhorn, also known as Courtney McAllister, also known as Cooter,…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1870
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lawrence Courtney Lawhorn, also known as Courtney McAllister, also known as
Cooter, also known as Coot
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 25-1982
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lawrence Courtney Lawhorn, also known as Courtney McAllister, also known as
Cooter, also known as Coot
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: January 29, 2026
Filed: February 3, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Lawrence Lawhorn appeals after he pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement
containing an appeal waiver, to fraud and identity theft offenses in two separate
cases--instituted by separate indictments--which were consolidated prior to the plea
hearing, and the district court1 sentenced him to 252 months in prison. He has
separate counsel in each appeal, who have moved for leave to withdraw, and have
filed briefs under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence
and arguing that the district court should have appointed new counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the record shows Lawhorn entered into
the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and that the appeal
waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the issues in this appeal. See United
States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an
appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92
(8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea
agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage
of justice); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997)
(defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent Lawhorn raises an ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to
address it in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749
(8th Cir. 2002) (generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct
appeal).
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 falling outside the
scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver,
and we grant the motions to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --