United States v. Clark ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4239
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SETH JAYE CLARK, a/k/a Meeko,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (5:04-cr-30018-gec)
Submitted: July 23, 2007 Decided: August 7, 2007
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
R. Darren Bostic, BOSTIC & BOSTIC, PC, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellant. Ray Burton Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Seth Jaye Clark appeals his conviction and 156-month
sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (2000).
The Government has moved to dismiss Clark’s appeal based upon the
waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver
is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,
169 (4th Cir. 2005). 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.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 461 (2005); United States v.
Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of
whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a
question of law that we review de novo. Blick, 408 F.3d 168.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Clark
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence
and the sentencing issues he raises fall within the scope of the
waiver. We therefore, grant, in part, the Government’s motion to
dismiss, and we dismiss the portion of the appeal relating to
Clark’s sentence.
- 2 -
While the appellate waiver does not preclude Clark’s
challenge to the validity of his guilty plea, we have reviewed
these claims as well and conclude that the district court fully
complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Clark knowingly and voluntarily
entered into his plea, and the district court did not err in
accepting his plea. Thus, although we deny the Government’s motion
to dismiss the appeal as to Clark’s challenge to the validity of
his conviction, we affirm the conviction. We dispense 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
- 3 -