United States of America v. Garnell August Carter

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 26-1155
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Garnell August Carter
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: July 7, 2026
Filed: July 10, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LAVENSKI R. SMITH, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Garnell Carter received a 108-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to
firearm and drug offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In pro
se briefs, he challenges the validity of the plea agreement, the calculation of his

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
offense level and criminal-history score, how the district court1 accounted for the
time he spent in state custody, and the effectiveness of appointed counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the plea agreement is valid and
contains an enforceable appeal waiver that covers most of these issues. See United
States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal
waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (explaining that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within its
scope, 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 Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063, 2026 WL 1751815, at *9 (U.S. June
18, 2026) (confirming that the miscarriage-of-justice exception is “narrow” (quoting
Andis, 333 F.3d at 891)). Of the arguments Carter did not waive, his offense-level
challenge is inconsistent with the text of the Sentencing Guidelines, see U.S.S.G.
§§ 2K2.1(a)(3)(B), 4B1.2(a)(2), and any change to his criminal history requires
evidence of a qualifying expungement, see United States v. Phillips, 124 F.4th 522,
526–27 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding that, because some expunged convictions still count,
there is no automatic plain error in including them in a criminal-history-score
calculation). As for the claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance, it will
have to await collateral review. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d
824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that ineffective-assistance claims are “more
properly raised in a separate motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255”).
We accordingly affirm in part and otherwise dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Matthew T. Schelp, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 2 --