United States of America v. Kyle G. Gibler, also known as Kyle Gibler

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3481
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Kyle G. Gibler, also known as Kyle Gibler
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: July 3, 2024
Filed: July 9, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Kyle Gibler appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to a child pornography offense pursuant to a written plea agreement containing
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the
issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.
2010) (stating that this court reviews de novo the validity and applicability of an
appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (stating 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).
To the extent Gibler is attempting to raise claims that counsel was ineffective,
we decline to consider such claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-
Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (establishing that ineffective-
assistance claims are usually best raised in collateral proceedings where the record
can be properly developed).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the
appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, grant counsel leave to withdraw,
and deny Gibler’s motions for appointment of new counsel.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --