US v. Jerry Davis
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERRY JOSE DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00011-JPB-DJJ-2)
October 7, 2009
October 15, 2009
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Rice, Martinsburg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Jerry Jose Davis seeks to appeal his conviction for distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and the resulting seventy-seven month sentence. On appeal, counsel filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review, but questioning whether the district court erred in calculating the guidelines sentencing range by awarding criminal history points for a 1991 bank robbery conviction. Davis was notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The asserting it Government is barred has by moved Davis's to dismiss the appeal, in the
validly entered plea agreement.
Davis's counsel has responded
that the motion to dismiss should be denied because the court is required to conduct an independent review of the record for
meritorious issues in accordance with Anders. A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Poindexter, 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 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 2
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 we review de novo. Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal any sentence within the statutory maximum. The sole issue he raises We therefore United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
on appeal falls within the scope of this waiver.
grant the Government's motion to dismiss in part and dismiss this portion of the appeal. Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement precludes our review of the sentence, the waiver does not
preclude our review of any errors in Davis's conviction that may be revealed pursuant to the review required by Anders. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore deny
the Government's motion to dismiss in part and affirm Davis's conviction. This writing, of court requires to that counsel the inform Davis, of in the
United States for further review.
If Davis requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 3
leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel's motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Davis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED 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?