United States v. Jalen Lewis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Jalen Lewis

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-2271 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jalen Dior Lewis, also known as Jalen Dio Lewis

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ____________

Submitted: October 19, 2022 Filed: October 24, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Jalen Dior Lewis appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence the district 1 court imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,

1 The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of Lewis’s sentence. Lewis filed a pro se brief challenging the reasonableness of his sentence and asserting counsel was ineffective.

We decline to consider Lewis’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (noting an ineffective-assistance claim is generally not cognizable on direct appeal but properly raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). We also conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to Lewis’s challenge to his sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (enforcing appeal waiver if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and it would not result in miscarriage of justice).

Further, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and dismiss this appeal. ______________________________

-2-

Reference

Status
Unpublished