United States of America v. Terry Douglas Jacobs

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-3311
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terry Douglas Jacobs
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 19-3312
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terry Douglas Jacobs
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: June 4, 2020
Filed: June 9, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
Before ERICKSON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Terry Jacobs pleaded guilty, in two separate cases, to Hobbs Act robbery,
armed bank robbery, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 1951(a), 2113(a), (d). The plea
agreements in both cases waived his right to appeal his sentence unless, as relevant
here, it exceeded the statutory maximum. The district court1 consolidated the cases
and gave him a 194-month sentence, less than the statutory maximum. See id. In
an Anders brief, Jacobs’s counsel raises the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence as a potential issue on appeal and requests permission to withdraw. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
We review the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver de novo. See
United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir 2010). Upon careful review, we
conclude that the waivers in these cases are both applicable and enforceable. See
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 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).
We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-
frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Accordingly, we
dismiss both appeals and grant counsel permission to withdraw.
______________________________
1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 2 of 2 --