United States v. Patrick Cleveland ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4583
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK ISAIAH CLEVELAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00014-NCT-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2020 Decided: October 8, 2020
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Isaiah Cleveland pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession
with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court imposed a 75-month sentence. Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court failed to
adequately address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in announcing Cleveland’s sentence.
Although advised of his right to file a pro se brief, Cleveland has not done so. The
Government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in
Cleveland’s plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver
if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v.
Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is “knowing and
voluntary.” Id. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we consider
the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant,
his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.”
United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Generally . . . , if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver
of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that
the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Our review of the record confirms that Cleveland knowingly and voluntarily waived
his right to appeal, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore conclude that
the waiver is valid and enforceable and that counsel’s challenge to the reasonableness of
Cleveland’s sentence falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Cleveland’s valid
appellate waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and
dismiss Cleveland’s appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and we deny the
motion in part and otherwise affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform
Cleveland, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Cleveland 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
Cleveland.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3