United States v. Harrison , 240 F. App'x 583 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00010-JFM)
Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Kobie A. Flowers, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, Staff Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Christopher J. Romano, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Harrison appeals the district court’s order
sentencing him to 135 months’ imprisonment following his guilty
plea to a single count of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2113(d), (f) (2000). Harrison’s counsel filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which counsel
identifies the issue of voluntariness of the guilty plea, but
submits there are no meritorious issues for appeal. In response,
the Government has moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis of a
waiver of appellate rights contained in its plea agreement with
Harrison. Although advised of his right to do so, Harrison has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief.
This court’s interpretation of Harrison’s plea agreement
is guided by contract law. United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64,
66 (4th Cir. 1997). In the instant matter, the waiver provision
applies only to a challenge to Harrison’s sentence: “[t]he
Defendant . . . knowingly and expressly waive[s] all rights
conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal whatever sentence is
imposed. . . . . [T]he Defendant waives any right to appeal from
any sentence within or below the advisory guidelines range
resulting from an adjusted base offense level of 27.” (J.A. 29).
The district court sentenced Harrison based on a total offense
level of 27. Although we conclude the waiver is enforceable to the
extent Harrison challenges his sentence, it does not preclude
- 2 -
Harrison from appealing his conviction. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion only to the extent that it applies to
Harrison’s appeal of his sentence.
With regard to the voluntariness of Harrison’s guilty
plea, we have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing and have
found no error. Because Harrison’s plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered, the district court did not err in accepting
Harrison’s plea. Accordingly, we find no error in Harrison’s
conviction.
Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the
record, we affirm Harrison’s conviction and dismiss the portion of
his appeal relating to his sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client 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 the client. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -