United States of America v. Christopher Franklin Beauvais

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3243
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher Franklin Beauvais
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Central
____________
Submitted: June 9, 2025
Filed: June 12, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Beauvais appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pled guilty to seven counts of abusive sexual contact pursuant to a written plea
1The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

agreement containing an appeal waiver. Pursuant to a joint sentencing
recommendation, the district court sentenced Beauvais to, inter alia, 15 years’
imprisonment. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that this court should
decline to enforce the appeal waiver, that the district court applied a higher-than-
warranted base offense level, and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable,
and enforceable, and that Beauvais’s challenge to the base offense level falls within
the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010)
(reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver). The record
reflects that Beauvais entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly
and voluntarily, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice.
See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(discussing the enforceability of appeal waivers).
Regarding Beauvais’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence, even assuming arguendo that this challenge falls outside of the appeal
waiver, the challenge necessarily fails because the district court sentenced him in line
with the joint sentencing recommendation. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781,
783 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A defendant who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to
a specific sentence may not challenge that punishment on appeal.”); United States v.
Lovell, 811 F.3d 1061, 1063 (8th Cir. 2016) (affirming above-Guidelines sentence to
which defendant stipulated in plea agreement).
We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part, based on the
appeal waiver, otherwise affirm, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --