United States v. Dennis Fairfax

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4359
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENNIS RAY FAIRFAX,
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-00058-D-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dennis Ray Fairfax pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon,
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924 (2012). The district court
sentenced him to ninety-six months’ imprisonment, the top of the
advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range.
On appeal, counsel for Fairfax 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 the substantive reasonableness of Fairfax’s
sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based
on the appellate waiver provision in Fairfax’s plea agreement.
After review of the record, we grant the Government’s motion and
dismiss the appeal.
We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). “We generally will enforce a
waiver . . . if the record establishes that the waiver is valid
and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). A
defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010).
2
Our review of the record confirms that Fairfax
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
conviction and his sentence, reserving only the right to appeal
a sentence in excess of the Guidelines range established at
sentencing. The district court imposed a within-Guidelines
sentence, and we have examined the record in light of our
obligations under Anders and have discerned no unwaived
meritorious issues. Therefore, we grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss.
This court requires that counsel inform Fairfax, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Fairfax 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 Fairfax.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the material
before this court and argument will not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3