United States of America v. Samuel Vega, also known as Samuel Dominguez-Vega

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2116
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Samuel Vega, also known as Samuel Dominguez-Vega
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: February 7, 2025
Filed: February 13, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Samuel Vega appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded
guilty to a drug conspiracy offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal
1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of the sentence.
Although Vega was granted an extension of time, he did not file a pro se brief;
however, his motion for an extension of time indicated that he wished to raise the
issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable as to the sentencing issues raised in this appeal. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of appeal waiver
are reviewed de novo); 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 Vega
raises an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we decline to address it in this
direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th
Cir. 2006).
We have 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver
and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --