United States of America v. Chelsea Monique Taken Alive

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2315
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Chelsea Monique Taken Alive
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: June 8, 2026
Filed: August 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Chelsea Monique Taken Alive was indicted on five counts of drug- and
firearm-related offenses. She pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and one count of possession with intent to distribute

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and the government
agreed to dismiss the remaining counts.
The parties’ plea agreement included an appeal waiver, whereby Taken Alive
agreed to waive her right to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues, with two exceptions:
she could appeal if the court imposed a sentence “above the upper end of the
applicable [G]uidelines range,” and she could “appeal or [] collaterally attack the
conviction or sentence based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that
challenges the validity of the guilty plea or th[e] waiver.”
At sentencing, Taken Alive objected to the application of a specific offense
characteristic: that she knowingly misrepresented or knowingly marketed as another
substance a mixture or substance containing fentanyl. See USSG § 2D1.1(b)(13)(A).
The district court1 overruled the objection, applied the 4-level enhancement, and
calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. The court then imposed a
sentence of 100 months. Taken Alive appeals, arguing the court erred in applying
the § 2D1.1(b)(13)(A) enhancement.
The government asks that we dismiss Taken Alive’s appeal based on the
appeal waiver. We will enforce an appeal waiver if the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily agreed to it; if the issue raised falls within the scope of the waiver; and
if enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. United States v.
Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The record shows that Taken Alive entered into the plea agreement and appeal
waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and she does not contend otherwise. Nor does
she assert that the error she alleges falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Rather, she argues that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of
justice.
1 The Honorable Daniel Mack Traynor, then United States District Judge of
North Dakota, now United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
It is a miscarriage of justice to impose an illegal sentence, which includes
sentences “not authorized by law.” Andis, 333 F.3d at 892 (quoting United States v.
Peltier, 312 F.3d 938, 942 (8th Cir. 2002)). And such an error would be obvious and
“of the type that would undermine public confidence in the judiciary.” Hunter v.
United States, 146 S. Ct. 1702, 1713 (2026). Taken Alive asserts that the
misapplication of a Guidelines provision may amount to an illegal sentence. But
miscalculation of the Guidelines range is a procedural error, which falls within the
scope of Taken Alive’s appeal waiver. See id. (“[S]tandard-fare errors in
misapplying sentencing law cannot cancel an appeal waiver.”); see also United
States v. Henry, 106 F.4th 763, 770–71 (8th Cir. 2024); Andis, 333 F.3d at 892
(“[A]n allegation that the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines . . .
is not subject to appeal in the face of a valid appeal waiver.”). And here, the district
court imposed a sentence below both the statutory maximum sentence and the
calculated Guidelines range.
The appeal is dismissed.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --