United States of America v. Gwendolyn E. Bellamy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3541
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gwendolyn E. Bellamy
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: March 13, 2026
Filed: March 18, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gwendolyn Bellamy appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after she
pled guilty to embezzlement, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
1The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, then District Judge, now Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

waiver. Her counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively
unreasonable. Bellamy has filed a pro se brief in which she appears to challenge the
voluntariness of her plea.
Initially, we conclude that Bellamy is precluded from challenging the
voluntariness of her guilty plea in this appeal because she did not move to withdraw
her plea below. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (to
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 his guilty plea).
We also conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable
to the issue raised in the Anders brief. 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). We have
independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and
have found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --