United States of America v. Christopher Deshun Mosley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2919
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Christopher Deshun Mosley
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: June 3, 2025
Filed: June 9, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Deshun Mosley appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense
pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1
1The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

sentenced him as an armed career criminal. His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
arguing that the court erred in relying on a prior residential burglary conviction as a
predicate offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. The government
has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issue raised in this appeal, and enforcing the waiver will not
result in a miscarriage of justice. 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) (appeal waiver will
be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and
voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreement, and enforcing waiver would not
result in miscarriage of justice); see also United States v. Sims, 933 F.3d 1009,
1014-15 (8th Cir. 2019) (a conviction under the Arkansas residential burglary statute
is a violent felony under the ACCA).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope
of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the government’s motion, dismiss the
appeal based on the appeal waiver, and grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --