United States of America v. Terry D. Nading

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2328
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Terry D. Nading
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: January 24, 2025
Filed: January 29, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Terry Nading appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1 imposed
after he pled guilty to drug and firearms offenses. His counsel has moved for leave
1The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Nading has filed a
supplemental pro se brief, challenging the evidence pertaining to the charged
offenses, the performance of his trial counsel, and the voluntariness of his plea
agreement.
To the extent that he is challenging the voluntariness of his guilty plea, we
conclude that Nading is precluded from making this argument on appeal, as he did
not move to withdraw his plea in the district court. See United States v. Foy, 617
F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010) (claim that plea was unknowing or involuntary
not cognizable on direct appeal where defendant failed to move in district court to
withdraw guilty plea). We decline to consider Nading’s ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d
824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are best litigated in collateral
proceedings, where record can be properly developed).
As to the remaining challenges raised by counsel and the defendant, we enforce
the appeal waiver. 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, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if
appeal falls within scope of waiver and defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered
into waiver). 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 outside the
scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, we affirm the
voluntariness of the plea agreement, and we dismiss the remainder of the appeal.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --