US v. Robin Travis
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBIN IRENE TRAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00047-JBF-FBS-1)
October 20, 2008
November 4, 2008
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Brian J. Samuels, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Robin Irene Travis pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. On appeal, her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Travis's sentence, but concluding that there were no
meritorious issues for appeal.
The Government filed a brief
noting that Travis had waived her right to appeal in her plea agreement. In We affirm in part and dismiss in part. her plea agreement, Travis waived the right to
"appeal the conviction and any sentence within the statutory maximum." waiver is A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that knowing and intelligent. United States v.
Amaya-Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005).
whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, this court examines the totality of the circumstances, educational including the accused's
with the terms of the plea agreement. 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002).
United States v. General, The question of whether a
defendant validly waived her right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). leads us to conclude that Travis United States v. Blick, Our review of the record knowingly and voluntarily
waived the right to appeal the reasonableness of her sentence. Thus, we dismiss the claim raised in Travis's Anders brief. However, an appeal waiver does not preclude
(1) challenges to a sentence on the ground that it exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally
impermissible factor such as race, (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on ineffective
assistance of counsel, or (3) claims concerning a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in proceedings following the guilty plea. (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 Therefore, Travis's waiver does not preclude
our review pursuant to Anders for any claims that might fall outside thorough Travis's the scope of the waiver. no Nonetheless, issues, to because we any a
falling outside the scope of the waiver. Thus, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. This
court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If the client requests such a that a petition would be be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that We dispense with oral
a copy thereof was served on the client. 3
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?