United States of America v. Ramon Miguel Felix-Navarrete, also known as Uriel Figueroa-Naharette, also known as…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2611
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ramon Miguel Felix-Navarrete, also known as Uriel Figueroa-Naharette, also
known as Miguel Felix-Valenzuela
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: December 13, 2024
Filed: December 18, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Ramon Felix-Navarrete appeals the below-Guidelines sentence the district
court1 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and commit
money laundering pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence and the voluntariness of the appeal waiver.
We conclude that the plea agreement and the appeal waiver were entered
knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Smith, 422 F.3d 715, 724 (8th Cir.
2005) (standard of review); Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir.
1997) (defendant’s statements during plea hearing carry strong presumption of
verity). We further conclude that the appeal waiver is applicable to the issues raised
in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard
of 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). To the extent that Felix-Navarrete
has attempted to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to
consider it on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824,
826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are usually best raised in
collateral proceedings).
Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to 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 dismiss this appeal and grant counsel leave to
withdraw.
______________________________
1The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --