United States of America v. Brian Ruth, Sr., also known as Brian J. Ruth

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1881
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Brian Ruth, Sr., also known as Brian J. Ruth
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
____________
Submitted: August 20, 2024
Filed: August 23, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Brian Ruth, Sr. appeals after he pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money
laundering pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver and the district

-- 1 of 3 --

court1 sentenced him to 108 months in prison. His counsel has moved for leave to
withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the sentence. Ruth has filed a pro se brief claiming that counsel was
ineffective and suggesting his plea was involuntary.
Upon careful review, we conclude that Ruth knowingly and voluntarily entered
into the plea agreement, as he explicitly confirmed that he understood the maximum
sentence he faced and the possibility that the court could sentence him above the
Guidelines range. See United States v. Green, 521 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2008)
(whether a plea was knowing and voluntary is reviewed de novo); United States v.
Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 890-91 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (one important way district
court can ensure plea agreement is knowing and voluntary is to question defendant
about decision to enter into agreement); see also Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d
699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s representations during plea-taking carry strong
presumption of verity).
We also conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable
to the issues raised by counsel in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d
702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of an appeal waiver is reviewed
de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
(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). We decline to
address Ruth’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in this direct appeal. See
United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002).
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

We have also 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 waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss in part based on the appeal waiver,
otherwise affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --