Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 26-1853 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Eric Anduja lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: November 9, 2026 Filed: November 13, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, GRASZ, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Eric Anduja appeals the above-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to committing voluntary manslaughter in Indian 1 The Honorable Camela C. Theeler, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. country. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Anduja’s plea counsel was ineffective. Anduja has filed a pro se brief requesting resentencing and contending that sentencing counsel was ineffective by failing to argue the victim’s conduct contributed to the nature and circumstances of the offense. We conclude that Anduja’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are more appropriate for collateral review where the record may be more fully developed. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating appellate court will consider ineffective-assistance claims only where record has been fully developed, not to act would amount to plain miscarriage of justice, or error is apparent). Additionally, we conclude Anduja is precluded from challenging the length of his sentence because he specifically requested the sentence the district court imposed. See United States v. Rexrode, 149 F.4th 977, 980-81 (8th Cir. 2025) (holding that by consenting to a specific sentence in a plea agreement, the defendant waives the right to challenge that sentence on appeal); see also United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 874, 879 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Whether couched as invited error or more generally as a waiver, the result is the same–this court will not conduct [appellate] review.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-