United States of America v. Cherelle Smith

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-3293
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Cherelle Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: April 28, 2026
Filed: May 5, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cherelle Smith appeals after she pled guilty to aiding and assisting in the
preparation of a false tax return, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
waiver. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence and restitution

-- 1 of 3 --

amount imposed by the district court.1 The government has moved to dismiss the
appeal based on the appeal waiver. In a pro se brief, Smith challenges the Guidelines
calculation and restitution amount, and claims prosecutorial misconduct and
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to most of the issues raised in this appeal, as the appeal falls within the
scope of the waiver, Smith knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement
and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice.
See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and
applicability of 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 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 further conclude that Smith failed to identify any conduct by the
government constituting misconduct, and we decline to consider her ineffective-
assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Clayton, 787 F.3d 929, 933
(8th Cir. 2015) (prosecutorial misconduct requires showing government’s conduct
was improper and affected defendant’s substantial rights); United States v. Ramirez-
Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are
usually best raised in collateral proceedings where record can be properly developed).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss this
1The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

appeal in part based on the appeal waiver, otherwise affirm, grant counsel’s motion
to withdraw, and deny Smith’s pending motions.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --