                 United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 18-2945
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

                               Terrance L. Wright

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                 ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield
                                 ____________

                            Submitted: June 10, 2019
                              Filed: June 27, 2019
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      On January 21, 2018, Terrence Wright pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement
to Possession with Intent to Distribute 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The district court1 sentenced him
to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. Wright
now appeals asserting the district court erred when it applied the career offender
guideline in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. Because Wright knowingly
waived his right to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.

I.    Background

      The plea agreement contained the following appeal waiver:

      The defendant expressly waives his right to appeal his sentence, directly
      or collaterally, on any ground except claims of: (1) ineffective assistance
      of counsel; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; or (3) an illegal sentence. An
      “illegal sentence” includes a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory
      maximum, but does not include less serious sentencing errors, such as
      a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, an abuse of discretion,
      or the imposition of an unreasonable sentence. . . .

During the change of plea hearing the court went through the plea agreement in some
detail with Wright.

       On August 30, 2018, Wright appeared before the district court for sentencing.
The court overruled Wright’s objection to the application of the career offender
guideline, finding that he had two predicate convictions for crimes of violence or
controlled substance offenses. Specifically, the court found that both Wright’s 2001
Missouri second-degree robbery and his 2002 Missouri sale of a controlled substance
qualified as predicate offenses.




      1
       The Honorable Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.

                                         -2-
       The district court found an applicable guideline range of 262-327 months and,
after granting the government’s substantial assistance motion, imposed the 108-month
sentence. The court explained the reasons for its below-guideline sentence, stating:

      My sentence is based on, one, the horrific childhood you had. While
      you have a high criminal history, a lot of it was in your very young,
      youthful days. And in the level of cooperation that you did produce to
      the government. I am mindful that you face a supervised release
      violation that we’ll take up and consider next.

Consistent with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the sentencing
hearing concluded with the court informing the defendant that any appeal must be
taken within fourteen days of the entry of the sentence.

II.   Discussion

      Wright argues that the appeal waiver he signed does not actually bar his appeal.
We review de novo the validity and applicability of an appeal waiver. United States
v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Sisco, 576 F.3d
791, 795 (8th Cir. 2009)). We will enforce an appeal waiver if the plea agreement
and waiver were knowingly and voluntarily made so long as enforcement of the
waiver does not result in a miscarriage of justice. Id. (citing United States v. Andis,
333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).

      This record establishes that Wright knowingly and voluntarily waived his right
to appeal in the absence of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial
misconduct, or an illegal sentence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. We have
previously held that a sentence is not illegal when it involves a misapplication of the
sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Lumpkins, 687 F.3d 1011, 1015 (8th Cir.
2012) (on a U.S.S.G. §4B1.1 claim, enforcing an appeal waiver that specified that a
guideline misapplication was not an “illegal sentence” for purposes of the appeal

                                         -3-
waiver). The illegal sentence exception to an appeal waiver is “extremely narrow”
and specifically does not apply to a misapplication of the guidelines. Andis, 333 F.3d
at 892.

      As Wright has asserted no claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or
prosecutorial misconduct, there are no grounds present for declining to enforce the
appeal waiver.

III.   Conclusion

       Accordingly, Wright’s appeal is dismissed.
                     ______________________________




                                         -4-
