United States v. Eric Bederson, No. 15-1898 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Smith, Colloton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Anders. Waiver of appeal rights was knowing and voluntary and enforcement would not result in miscarriage of justice. Claims that sentence violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment are without merit.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1898 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eric Lee Bederson, also known as John Jacobs, also known as Pinkus Diamond, also known as pinkusd@live.com, also known as pinchasd@live.com lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: October 29, 2015 Filed: November 9, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Eric Lee Bederson appeals the 504-month prison sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing child pornography over the internet. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bederson has filed a pro se supplemental brief. Bederson’s written plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal his convictions and sentences, with certain exceptions. After careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010), we will enforce the appeal waiver, because the record shows that Bederson entered into both the plea agreement and the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and we perceive no resulting miscarriage of justice, see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The waiver forecloses all but one of the arguments raised in the briefs. As for counsel’s contentions that Bederson’s sentence violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment, which arguably fall within an exception to the waiver, we conclude they are without merit. See United States v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906, 911 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Eighth Amendment challenge to sentence); United States v. Archuleta, 412 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining standard for plain error review when due process claim is first raised on appeal). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. _________________________________ 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
