8th Circuit dismissed Kamel Elburki's appeal, enforcing his plea agreement's appeal waiver and finding no…
United States v. Kamel Elburki
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
8th Circuit dismissed Kamel Elburki's appeal, enforcing his plea agreement's appeal waiver and finding no valid grounds to challenge his sentence or guilty plea.
Why it matters
The Eighth Circuit dismissed Kamel Elburki's appeal after finding that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement was valid, enforceable, and covered his sentencing challenge. His attorney filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw, arguing the sentence was unreasonable, but the court found no non-frivolous issues outside the waiver's scope. Elburki's own challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea also failed because he never sought to withdraw the plea in the lower court.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Kamel Elburki, whose appeal was dismissed. More broadly, it reinforces existing rules for criminal defendants who sign plea agreements with appeal waivers, reminding them that such waivers are generally enforceable and that challenges to a guilty plea must be raised in the trial court before they can be considered on appeal.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 22, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 22, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 22, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Kamel Elburki pleaded guilty to drug and money laundering offenses under a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, meaning he agreed in advance not to appeal certain matters. After being sentenced by the district court, he appealed anyway. His attorney, finding no strong grounds for appeal, filed what is called an Anders brief, a procedure where defense counsel informs the court that the appeal appears to have no merit while still protecting the defendant's rights. Counsel specifically argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable, and Elburki filed his own brief arguing his guilty plea was not truly voluntary. The court addressed the appeal waiver first. It applied a three-part test from prior Eighth Circuit precedent: whether the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement and waiver, and whether enforcing the waiver would cause a miscarriage of justice. The court concluded all three conditions were satisfied, making the sentencing challenge barred by the waiver. As for Elburki's personal challenge to the voluntariness of his plea, the court found it could not grant relief because Elburki never asked the district court to let him withdraw his plea before the appeal. Under Eighth Circuit rules, that issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The court also conducted its own independent review of the full record, as required when an Anders brief is filed, and found no non-frivolous issues that fell outside the scope of the appeal waiver. As a result, the court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal entirely. There was no dissent noted in the opinion, which was issued as an unpublished per curiam decision.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-3056 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Kamel Elburki lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: July 17, 2026 Filed: July 22, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kamel Elburki appeals after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, to drug and money laundering offenses. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court1 imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Elburki has filed a pro se brief challenging the voluntariness of his plea. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to Elburki’s sentencing challenge. 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). To the extent Elburki wishes to withdraw his guilty plea, he may not obtain that relief because he did not move to withdraw his plea below. See United States v. Foy, 617 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (8th Cir. 2010). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.