United States v. Hall , 291 F. App'x 500 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON O’NEIL HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:06-cr-00028-DKC-9)
Submitted: August 8, 2008 Decided: September 9, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Warren E. Gorman, Chevy Chase, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Skalla, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon O’Neil Hall pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or
more of cocaine base. Hall’s plea agreement reads: “Defendant
waives any right to appeal from any sentence within or below the
advisory guidelines range resulting from an adjusted offense level
of 35.” (SJA 137, emphasis in original). The district court
conducted Hall’s plea hearing in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 and specifically reviewed Hall’s above waiver. Hall was
sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment, based on an offense level
of 33.
Hall appeals, alleging that the district court erred by
failing to give him a sentence reduction under the “safety valve”
provision of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (2006). The Government
responds that Hall has waived his right to contest his sentence.
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.
We review de novo whether a defendant has effectively
waived his right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493,
496 (4th Cir. 1992). A defendant may waive the right to appeal if
that waiver is a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the
right to appeal. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143,
1146 (4th Cir. 1995). Our review of the plea hearing reveals that
- 2 -
Hall knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
instant sentence. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d at 1146. The district
court fully questioned Hall regarding his waiver of his right to
appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy at his plea hearing,
United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991),
and based on an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, we
find the waiver enforceable. United States v. General, 278 F.3d
389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, because Hall has waived his right to contest
his 135-month sentence on appeal and he raises no issues falling
outside the scope of that waiver, we dismiss. 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 -