United States v. Damon Dickerson , 457 F. App'x 232 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-4055
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAMON GERARD DICKERSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:09-cr-00402-CCB-1)
    Submitted:   November 10, 2011            Decided:   December 8, 2011
    Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jonathan A. Gladstone, LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN GLADSTONE,
    Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant.    Rod J. Rosenstein, United
    States Attorney, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Damon   Gerard    Dickerson      appeals        his    conviction     and
    sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006).                        Dickerson
    pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to
    the agreed-upon term of 188 months’ imprisonment.
    Dickerson’s      plea    agreement     contained           a   provision
    waiving his right to appeal his conviction or a sentence of 188
    months’    imprisonment.      On    appeal,     Dickerson         claims   that   the
    district    court   improperly      sentenced    him    as        an   armed    career
    criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).                Dickerson stipulated
    in his plea agreement that he met the qualifications of an armed
    career criminal.      The Government seeks dismissal of Dickerson’s
    appeal based on Dickerson’s waiver of his appellate rights.
    We approach the question of whether a defendant has
    waived his right to appeal in connection with a plea proceeding
    de novo.    United States v. Manigan, 
    592 F.3d 621
    , 626 (4th Cir.
    2010).     Where    the   United    States    seeks    to    enforce       an   appeal
    waiver and there is no claim that the United States breached its
    obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver
    if the record establishes that (1) the defendant knowingly and
    intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal; and (2) the
    issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.                         United
    States v. Blick, 
    408 F.3d 162
    , 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
    2
    Dickerson        does     not       challenge     the    knowing     and
    intelligent waiver of his appellate rights.                    Instead, he argues
    that he was sentenced in excess of the maximum statutory penalty
    for     violations      of   18     U.S.C.      § 922(g)(1)     because     he   was
    improperly designated and sentenced as an armed career criminal
    under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).            We find this issue waived for appeal,
    as Dickerson stipulated he was an armed career criminal and is
    bound by his stipulation.             See United States v. Martinez, 
    122 F.3d 421
    , 423 (7th Cir. 1997).                  Thus, we enforce the appellate
    waiver and dismiss the appeal.
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-4055

Citation Numbers: 457 F. App'x 232

Judges: Duncan, Davis, Diaz

Filed Date: 12/8/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024