US v. Tyrone Yates
Filing
920090504
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4737
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TYRONE EUGENE YATES, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cr-00020-JPB-JES-1)
Submitted:
February 24, 2009
Decided:
May 4, 2009
Before KING and Circuit Judge.
AGEE,
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Tyrone Eugene Yates appeals from his conviction and 188-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Yates' counsel filed
an Anders brief, in which he states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, acknowledges that the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and concedes that Yates' plea was "knowing, intelligent brief and voluntary." Yates his filed a pro se
supplemental classification.
challenging
career
offender
The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate counsel waiver asserts contained that the in Yates' plea agreement. motion is
Yates'
Government's
premature.
Yates also opposes the Government's motion in a pro
se filing, essentially asserting that because he did not know he could be sentenced as a career offender, his plea was not
knowing and voluntary.
Yates also suggests that his counsel was
ineffective for not arguing the invalidity of his sentence to this court, and for not securing an exception to his appellate waiver that would have allowed on him to We challenge grant the his career to
offender
classification
appeal.
motion
dismiss in part, deny it in part, and affirm in part.
2
A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). See United We review
the validity of an appellate waiver de novo, and will uphold a waiver of appellate rights if the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is covered by the waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. Our review of the
record reveals that Yates knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. We conclude, however, that Yates' assertions that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel constitute exceptions to the appellate
waiver because the issues either cannot be waived by appellate waiver or present "colorable" constitutional challenges. See,
e.g., United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). Moreover, Yates' appellate waiver does not preclude an Accordingly, we deny the
appeal pertaining to his conviction.
Government's motion to dismiss as to any claims not foreclosed by the waiver. While we possess jurisdiction to consider the
excepted claims, we nonetheless find that none warrant vacatur. As previously stated, the record confirms that the
district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 hearing, ensuring that Yates' plea was knowing and 3 voluntary in all respects.
Yates' belated claim that he did not understand the consequences of his plea is simply belied by the record. In addition, Yates'
claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not "conclusively appear" on the record and, accordingly, is not cognizable on direct appeal. Yates may assert this claim in an See United States omitted),
appropriate motion for postconviction relief. v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir.)
(citation
cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 490 (2008). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion to dismiss the appeal regarding Yates' sentence, and deny the motion as to all remaining claims. We nonetheless affirm the district court's
judgment with regard to any claims not foreclosed by the waiver provision. This writing, of court right requires to counsel the to inform Yates, of in the
his
petition
Supreme
Court
United States for further review.
If Yates 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 We dispense with contentions are
state that a copy thereof was served on Yates. oral argument because the facts and legal
4
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
5
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?