United States v. Gaspar Acosta
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Date FiledOctober 23, 2026
Docket26-2048
StatusUnpublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 26-2048
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Gaspar Medina Acosta
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: October 20, 2026
Filed: October 23, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before L.R. SMITH, BENTON, and TRAYNOR, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Gaspar Acosta appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled
guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver.
1
The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri.
His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the application of a sentencing
enhancement, the denial of several sentencing reductions, and the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable,
and applicable to the issues raised. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th
Cir. 2010) (validity and applicability of appeal waiver is reviewed de novo); 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). No miscarriage of justice will result from enforcing
the waiver. See Hunter v. United States, 608 U.S. 713, 726-28 (2026)
(miscarriage-of-justice exception is “high bar” reserved for “extreme cases”).
Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75
(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.
______________________________
-2-