Filed: Jun. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kerry Webber, a/k/a Dad, a/k/a Dakim, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00006-RGD-TEM-1) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and af
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4979 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kerry Webber, a/k/a Dad, a/k/a Dakim, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00006-RGD-TEM-1) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and aff..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4979
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kerry Webber, a/k/a Dad, a/k/a
Dakim,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00006-RGD-TEM-1)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Timothy V. Anderson, ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United
States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Richardson seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Richardson pled guilty
pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to 260
months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel for Richardson filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the application of the career offender enhancement
in the calculation of Richardson’s sentence. Richardson has not
filed a supplemental pro se brief despite notice of his right to
do so. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred
by Richardson’s waiver of the right to appeal, included in the
plea agreement. Counsel for Richardson has responded in
opposition to the motion to dismiss and has moved for a
determination of Richardson’s standing to pursue an appeal in
light of the appellate waiver.
We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
United States v. Copeland,
707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied,
134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). We generally will enforce a
waiver “if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and
that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.” United States v. Thornsbury,
670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th
2
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant’s
waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Richardson
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
conviction and sentence. Because the government seeks to
enforce this valid waiver, we grant the motion to dismiss in
part and dismiss Richardson’s appeal as to the claim raised in
the Anders brief, which is clearly within the waiver’s scope.
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of
the waiver. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment
as to all issues not encompassed by Richardson’s broad waiver of
appellate rights. We dismiss as moot Richardson’s motion for a
determination of standing.
This court requires that counsel inform Richardson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Richardson requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Richardson.
3
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4