United States of America v. Antonio Harris

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2802
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Antonio Harris
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: February 2, 2026
Filed: February 5, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Harris appeals after he pleaded guilty to firearm offenses and the
district court1 imposed a below-Guidelines-range sentence. Counsel has moved for
1The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), acknowledging an appeal waiver in the plea agreement, and challenging the
voluntariness of Harris’s plea and his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Harris
has filed a pro se brief challenging his counsel’s effectiveness and the Guidelines
calculations, and asserting he was a victim of selective prosecution.
We decline to consider Harris’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on
direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002)
(generally, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal); 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). Upon careful review, we conclude that the record
shows Harris entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver knowingly and
voluntarily, and that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the
remaining issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704
(8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an 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 the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver,
and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice); see also
Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s
representations during plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).
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 waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal based on the appeal waiver, and
grant the motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --