United States of America v. Eliseo Rodrigo Romo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1029
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Eliseo Rodrigo Romo
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: March 7, 2025
Filed: March 25, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
Eliseo Rodrigo Romo appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, to a drug
offense. The government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal
waiver. Counsel for Romo opposes the motion, and, citing Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserts that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a
miscarriage of justice, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. Counsel
also filed a motion to withdraw. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this
court dismisses the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
This court concludes that the appeal waiver is enforceable, as counsel’s
sentencing challenge falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, the record shows
that Romo entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and
voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver.
See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review);
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 waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would
not result in miscarriage of justice; miscarriage-of-justice exception is narrow and
generally applies only to ineffective assistance of counsel or to sentence that is above
statutory range, violates plea agreement, or is based on constitutionally
impermissible factor); see also 18 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (if person violates statute
after prior conviction for serious drug felony has become final, person shall be
sentenced to prison term of 180 months to life). This court has reviewed the record
independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and has found no non-
frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The
motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 2 of 2 --