United States of America v. James Lovett Ivy

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-1497
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
James Lovett Ivy
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls
____________
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Filed: January 5, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Ivy directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he pled1
guilty to a firearm charge, pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal
The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District1
of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver, and relaying Ivy’s argument that Ivy is
entitled to be resentenced because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable. In particular, we
note that Ivy’s own statements at the change-of-plea hearing indicated that he
knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver. 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, 890-92 (8th
Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers); Nguyen v. United
States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during
plea-taking carry strong presumption of verity).
As to the ineffective-assistance claim, we decline to consider it on direct
appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir.
2006) (noting that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral
proceedings where the record can be properly developed).
Furthermore, we have 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.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --