United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2065 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lionel Thompson

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: October 20, 2021 Filed: November 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Lionel Thompson received a 120-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of the plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for, as relevant here, ineffective assistance of counsel. In an Anders brief, Thompson’s counsel questions the district court’s1 denial of a motion to appoint new counsel and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). A pro se supplemental brief discusses the offense-level calculation and raises ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal waiver, which is enforceable, covers all but one of these issues. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that an 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). For that one, ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to consider it now. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826–27 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that this type of claim is “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings”).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, grant counsel permission to withdraw, and deny the pending pro se motion as moot. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-