United States of America v. Miqueal Harwell

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2529
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Miqueal Harwell
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri
____________
Submitted: November 27, 2023
Filed: November 30, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Miqueal Harwell appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to suppress
evidence after he pled guilty to a firearm offense, pursuant to a plea agreement that
includes an appeal waiver. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Upon careful review , we conclude 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) (reviewing validity and applicability of appeal waiver de novo);
United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (enforcing
appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and
voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and it would not result in
miscarriage of justice). We have also independently reviewed the record under
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1998), and found no non-frivolous issues for appeal
falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
based on the appeal waiver and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
1The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the
Honorable Noelle C. Collins, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --