US v. Keriem Wright
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
April 8, 2009
April 27, 2009
Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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).
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
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?