United States of America v. Jerry R. Wheeler, also known as Love, also known as Jerry Wheeler

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3604
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jerry R. Wheeler, also known as Love, also known as Jerry Wheeler
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
____________
Submitted: September 11, 2024
Filed: September 16, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jerry Wheeler appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he
pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

an appeal waiver. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as
substantively unreasonable and asserting that plea counsel was ineffective.
We decline to consider Wheeler’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in
this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002)
(in general, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim
is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Upon careful review, we conclude that
the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the remaining issue raised
in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo
review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); 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 have 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver
and grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --