Background
Turner Heinbaugh pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit money laundering under a plea agreement containing a waiver of his right to appeal. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota imposed sentence.
Heinbaugh appealed. His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit concluded that Heinbaugh’s appeal waiver was valid and enforceable and that it applied to his substantive-unreasonableness challenge.
After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, the court found no nonfrivolous issues outside the waiver’s scope. It granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A valid and enforceable appeal waiver barred Heinbaugh’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
- The court independently reviewed the record for nonfrivolous issues falling outside the appeal waiver.
- Finding no such issues, the court allowed counsel to withdraw and dismissed the appeal.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates that an appellate court will enforce a plea agreement’s appeal waiver when the waiver is valid and covers the issue presented. An Anders filing does not end the inquiry: the court still independently examines the record for nonfrivolous appellate issues outside the waiver.