US v. Keriem Wright

Filing 920090427

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-5066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KERIEM WRIGHT, a/k/a Minute, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00041-JPB-DJJ-3)

Submitted:

April 8, 2009

Decided:

April 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

MICHAEL,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry P. Beck, POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Keriem Wright pled guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of approximately 29.2 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district court sentenced him as a career offender On

to 188 months, the bottom of the advisory guidelines range.

appeal, counsel has filed an Anders brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly sentenced Wright as a career offender and whether the sentence is reasonable. Wright was informed of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based upon We affirm in part and

Wright's waiver of appellate rights. dismiss in part. 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 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson,

410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991).

The question of whether a

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Wright knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. Moreover, the sentencing issues raised on appeal fall We therefore grant, in part, United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d

within the scope of the waiver.

the Government's motion to dismiss 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 Wright's conviction that may be revealed by our review pursuant to Anders. the transcript of the plea colloquy convinces Our review of us that the

district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Wright's guilty plea. The district court ensured that

the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily and was supported by an independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, Thus, we deny, in and affirm the

949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). part, the Government's motion to dismiss

conviction. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not covered by the waiver. We therefore affirm Wright's conviction 3

and dismiss the appeal of his sentence.

This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further

If the client 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. was served on

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof the client. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

4