United States v. Donnell Parker , 499 F. App'x 297 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-4385
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DONNELL SYLVESTER PARKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
    Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00047-JPB-DJJ-3)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2012            Decided:   December 14, 2012
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen
    M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
    Virginia, for Appellant.     William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
    States Attorney, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Pursuant       to     a     written          plea    agreement,    Donnell
    Sylvester Parker pled guilty to distribution of a quantity of
    cocaine base, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
    (West 1999 & Supp. 2012).               In the plea agreement, Parker agreed
    to waive all rights to appeal any sentence within the maximum
    possible penalty provided in the statute of conviction, as well
    as the manner in which any such sentence was determined.                          Parker
    now appeals.         His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), asserting that there are no
    meritorious     grounds      for       appeal       but     questioning    whether     the
    district court committed clear error when it calculated the drug
    quantity attributable to Parker as relevant conduct.                         Parker was
    advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
    has not filed one.          The Government has filed a motion to dismiss
    Parker’s     appeal    based     on      the       appellate     waiver    provision   in
    Parker’s plea agreement.           We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
    We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate
    rights.      United States v. Blick, 
    408 F.3d 162
    , 168 (4th Cir.
    2005).       “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that
    waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
    forgo the right to appeal.”                    United States v. Amaya-Portillo,
    
    423 F.3d 427
    ,     430   (4th       Cir.    2005)      (internal   quotation    marks
    omitted).       To    determine         whether       the    waiver   is    knowing    and
    2
    intelligent,       we   look     “to    the   totality     of   the   circumstances,
    including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as
    the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the
    terms of the plea agreement.”                     United States v. General, 
    278 F.3d 389
    ,    400     (4th    Cir.     2002)      (internal     quotation    marks
    omitted).
    Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
    Parker knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
    sentence and that the issue his counsel asserts in the Anders
    brief is within the scope of the waiver.                    We therefore grant in
    part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal
    of Parker’s sentence.             The waiver provision, however, does not
    preclude our direct review of Parker’s conviction pursuant to
    Anders.     We have reviewed the entire record and have found no
    issues that are meritorious and outside the scope of the waiver.
    We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and
    affirm Parker’s conviction.
    This       court    requires      that   counsel     inform   Parker,     in
    writing,    of   his     right    to    petition     the   Supreme    Court    of   the
    United    States    for    further      review.      If   Parker   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 Parker.                           We dispense
    3
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   the   court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED IN PART;
    AFFIRMED IN PART
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-4385

Citation Numbers: 499 F. App'x 297

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Thacker

Filed Date: 12/14/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024