United States of America v. Leslie Westfall

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2373
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Leslie Westfall
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: February 21, 2025
Filed: March 27, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Leslie Westfall appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense, under a
plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, and the district court1 sentenced him to
1The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

110 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), claiming that the government
engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by presenting false testimony from police
officers at sentencing, and that the court gave undue weight to the officers’
statements.
Upon careful review, we conclude that, to the extent his prosecutorial
misconduct claim falls outside the appeal waiver, Westfall has failed to show
misconduct, as he did not demonstrate that the officers’ statements were false or that
the government knew they were false. See United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 770
(8th Cir. 1995) (to prove a due process violation from prosecutorial use of false
testimony, defendant must show that the prosecution used perjured testimony and that
the prosecution knew or should have known of the perjury).
As to Westfall’s claim that the court gave undue weight to the officers’
statements, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable.
See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (validity and
applicability of an 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 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 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 this appeal in part, based on the appeal
waiver, otherwise affirm, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --