United States v. Chester Wheeless , 586 F. App'x 153 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHESTER LAMAR WHEELESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00238-F-1)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 9, 2014
Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chester Lamar Wheeless pleaded guilty to obstruction
of commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012),
and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). The district
court sentenced Wheeless to 141 months of imprisonment and he
now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the
appeal.
On appeal, Wheeless argues that the district court
plainly erred in failing to provide him an opportunity to
withdraw his guilty plea after rejecting one of the non-binding
Guidelines stipulations in the plea agreement. The Government
has asserted that Wheeless’ appellate waiver in the plea
agreement bars review of this claim.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United
States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). A waiver
will preclude appeal of a specific issue if the waiver is valid
and the issue is within the scope of the waiver. United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether a
defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of
law that this court reviews de novo. Id. at 168.
“The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the
defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right
2
to appeal.” Id. at 169. Generally, if the district court fully
questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to
appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th
Cir. 1991). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that Wheeless knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive his
right to appeal and that the issue Wheeless seeks to raise on
appeal falls squarely within the scope of the appellate waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3