United States of America v. Rayquan Duane Pettaway

23-1365Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31 mar 2025

Testo completo

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3111
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Rayquan Duane Pettaway
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: March 25, 2025
Filed: March 28, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Rayquan Pettaway appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pled guilty to conspiracy and firearms offenses pursuant to a plea agreement
1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
containing an appeal waiver. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
dismisses the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
Counsel moved for leave to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), acknowledging the appeal waiver but challenging
the application of an enhancement based on the number of firearms involved in the
conspiracy. Upon careful review, this court concludes that the appeal waiver is
enforceable, the issue identified by counsel falls within the scope of the appeal
waiver, the record shows that Pettaway entered into the plea agreement and the
appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result
from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.
2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003)
(en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver,
defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and
enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75 (1988), this court finds no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the
appeal waiver.
The appeal is dismissed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.