United States v. Brady

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4633
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MAX K. BRADY, a/k/a Boots,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-4634
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BROCK W. WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-04-22)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John R. Angotti, ANGOTTI & STRAFACE, L.C., Morgantown, West
Virginia; Raymond H. Yackel, Jr., Morgantown, West Virginia, for
Appellants. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, John C.
Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Max K. Brady and Brock W. Wilson appeal their convictions
and sentences after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute
Oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2000).
In light of the valid appellate waiver provisions in their plea
agreements, we dismiss the appeals.
Brady and Wilson made a knowing and voluntary decision to
forego their right to appeal in their plea agreements, see United
States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995), and
the district court properly reviewed the waiver provisions with
them at their plea hearing. See United States v. Wessells, 936
F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wiggins, 905
F.2d 51, 53-54 (4th Cir. 1990). Under these circumstances, we find
Brady and Wilson have waived their right to appeal their sentences.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), does not alter our decision. See United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169-70 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that
Booker does not render an otherwise valid appellate waiver
unknowing or involuntary).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. 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 -