United States of America v. Vanessa Gonzalez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 26-1072
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Vanessa Gonzalez
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: July 28, 2026
Filed: July 31, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Vanessa Gonzalez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after she
pled guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
1The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., then Chief Judge for the District of
Nebraska, now United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-- 1 of 2 --

waiver. Her 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. In a pro se brief, Gonzalez challenges the effectiveness of counsel and
requests oral argument, new appointed counsel, and to seal her brief.
We conclude Gonzalez’s challenge to the effectiveness of counsel is more
appropriate for collateral review and thus decline to consider it on direct appeal. See
United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating
that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral proceedings
where record can be properly developed). Upon careful review, we conclude the
appeal waiver is valid, applicable and enforceable to the issue raised in the Anders
brief. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing 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).
Having independently reviewed the record under 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 deny Gonzalez’s requests, grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --