United States v. Jerry Wheeler, No. 23-3604 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-3604 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Jerry R. Wheeler, also known as Love, also known as Jerry Wheeler lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: September 11, 2024 Filed: September 16, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jerry Wheeler appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. an appeal waiver. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable and asserting that plea counsel was ineffective. We decline to consider Wheeler’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002) (in general, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the remaining issue raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in 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 appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver and grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
