Background
Darrell C. Roseborough pleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri to fraud and theft offenses. His plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal.
Roseborough nevertheless appealed the sentence imposed by the district court. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable and moved for leave to withdraw.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit concluded that Roseborough’s appeal waiver was valid and enforceable and that it applied to his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, the court found no nonfrivolous issues outside the waiver’s scope. It therefore granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A valid and enforceable plea-agreement appeal waiver can foreclose a substantive-reasonableness challenge to a sentence.
- The court independently reviewed the record despite counsel’s filing of an Anders brief.
- Because the record disclosed no nonfrivolous issue beyond the waiver’s scope, the court dismissed the appeal and permitted counsel to withdraw.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that defendants who knowingly enter enforceable appeal waivers generally cannot obtain appellate review of sentencing arguments covered by those waivers. It also illustrates the Eighth Circuit’s practice of independently examining the record in an Anders appeal for potentially nonfrivolous issues outside the waiver.