8th Cir.

United States of America v. Gwendolyn E. Bellamy

March 18, 2026 ·25-3541 ·Panel Decision · By James Taylor

The Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal because the defendant's valid plea agreement waived her right to challenge the sentence. The court further held that she could not challenge the voluntariness of her guilty plea on direct appeal without first moving to withdraw the plea in the district court.

Gwendolyn Bellamy pled guilty to embezzlement in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As part of the plea process, she entered into a plea agreement that included a waiver of her right to appeal. After sentencing, Bellamy filed a pro se brief challenging the voluntariness of her guilty plea. Her appointed counsel, finding no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, filed a motion to withdraw under the standard set forth in Anders v. California and submitted a brief arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The government, as the appellee, opposed the appeal.

The court addressed two primary legal barriers to Bellamy's appeal. First, regarding the challenge to the plea's voluntariness, the court cited United States v. Foy, establishing that a claim that a plea was unknowing or involuntary is not cognizable on direct appeal if the defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea in the district court. Second, the court analyzed the appeal waiver. Citing United States v. Scott and United States v. Andis, the court applied a de novo standard to determine if the waiver was valid and applicable. The court found the waiver enforceable because Bellamy knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement, the appeal fell within the scope of the waiver, and enforcing it would not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also conducted an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio and found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

The appeal is dismissed, and the district court's sentence stands. Bellamy is precluded from raising the voluntariness of her plea on direct appeal. If she wishes to challenge the plea's voluntariness, she must pursue a motion to withdraw the plea in the district court or seek relief through a habeas corpus petition, as direct appeal is no longer an available avenue for that specific claim. The dismissal also confirms that the appeal waiver effectively bars challenges to the sentence based on the arguments raised in the Anders brief.