United States v. Brandon Williams , 706 F. App'x 785 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON MONQUEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00006-BO-1)
Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Monquee Williams pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement,
to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012), and the district
court sentenced Williams to 48 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Williams’ counsel has
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that no
meritorious grounds exist for appeal but questioning whether the district court
procedurally erred in calculating Williams’ base offense level at sentencing. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Williams’
plea agreement. Williams has received notice of the right to file a pro se supplemental
brief and, through counsel, has filed a response to the motion to dismiss, asking the court
to conduct an Anders review.
We conclude that Williams’ appeal waiver is valid because he entered it
knowingly and intelligently. See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.
2010). Williams waived the right to appeal his conviction and any sentence within or
below the applicable advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to any issues within the
compass of the waiver that are waivable by law. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d
137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that certain claims cannot be waived by plea
agreement). We also conclude that the record does not support any claims that cannot be
waived by plea agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 530 (4th
Cir. 2013); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994).
2
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and
affirm the district court’s judgment as to any issue not precluded by the appeal waiver.
This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams 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 Williams. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3