US v. Corey Estes

Filing 920100520

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4602 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. COREY ESTES, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00013-FPS-JES-1) Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey Estes pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine and fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (2006). At sentencing, the district court determined that Estes had an advisory guidelines range of 262 to 327 months' imprisonment and sentenced Estes to 262 months' imprisonment. The district court later reentered judgment against Estes to reinstate Estes' appellate rights, and Estes timely noted his appeal from the reentered judgment. On appeal, Estes has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Government has filed a motion to dismiss Estes' appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Estes' plea agreement. and dismiss in part. Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. 3742 (2006). States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). United A waiver We affirm in part will preclude appeal of a specific issue if the waiver is valid and the issue is within the scope of the waiver. United The States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). Estes was informed of his right supplemental brief. He has not done so. to file a pro se 2 question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id. at 168. a Generally, defendant if the district the waiver court of specifically his right to questions regarding appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). Estes knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal any sentence within the maximum provided in the statute of conviction. We therefore grant the motion to dismiss in United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d part, and dismiss the appeal to the extent it relates to Estes' sentence. In his Anders brief, Estes questions whether the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting his guilty plea. review The of appellate this issue, waiver and provision we does not preclude motion our to therefore deny the dismiss in part. properly informed During the plea hearing, the district court Estes of the nature of the charges and penalties he faced and the rights he was forfeiting as a result of his plea. The court also found that Estes was competent and entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily and that there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea. See United States v. We find DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 3 that the district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Estes' plea, and therefore we affirm Estes' conviction. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Estes' conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. writing, of This court requires that counsel inform Estes, in the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Estes 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 state that a copy thereof was served on Estes. 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 would process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 4

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?