United States of America v. Chloe M. DaSilva

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3558
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Chloe M. DaSilva
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: March 20, 2025
Filed: March 25, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Chloe DaSilva appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after she
pleaded guilty to simple assault of a flight attendant under a written plea agreement
1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

containing an appeal waiver. Her counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the
sentence is unreasonable.
It appears that DaSilva has been released from prison since the time she filed
this appeal, and thus any appeal of her prison sentence is now moot.2 See United
States v. Williams, 483 F.3d 889, 889 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (appeal of
defendant’s sentence was moot because she was released during pendency of appeal,
and effective relief was thus impossible). To the extent DaSilva appeals the term of
supervised release imposed by the district court, however, the appeal is barred by the
appeal waiver. 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 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 waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss this
appeal.
______________________________
2See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed March 14, 2025).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --