United States v. Michael Bassett, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4577
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THOMAS BASSETT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:13-cr-00120-D-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Thomas Bassett, Jr., pled guilty to one count
of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2) (2012), and was sentenced to 210 months of
imprisonment, the bottom of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range. On appeal, Bassett’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence
by sentencing him within the imprisonment range called for by
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2 (2013). The
Government has filed a motion to dismiss. For the reasons that
follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th
Cir. 1991). The question of whether a defendant validly waived
his right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews
de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2
2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Bassett knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence, except for circumstances not extant in this appeal.
His plea hearing was conducted in compliance with Rule 11 and we
therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of
Bassett’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues not foreclosed by Bassett’s appellate waiver.
We therefore affirm Bassett’s conviction. This court requires
that counsel inform Bassett, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Bassett 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 Bassett. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3