US v. Daryl Barley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:10-cr-00010-jlk-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998716467].. [11-4213]

Appeal: 11-4213

Document: 35

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4213

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARYL WENDELL BARLEY, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00010-jlk-1)

Submitted:

October 27, 2011

Decided:

November 4, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rena G. Berry, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant.
Timothy J.
Heaphy, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4213

Document: 35

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Pursuant

to

a

plea

agreement,

Daryl

Wendell

Barley

pled guilty to one count of distribution of more than fifty
grams of cocaine base and one count of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine powder, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(2006).

The district court sentenced Barley to concurrent terms

of 292 months’ imprisonment.
Despite the waiver of the right to appeal included in
his plea agreement, Barley seeks to appeal his sentence, arguing
that the appeal waiver is not enforceable because the Government
breached the plea agreement by seeking a sentence based on a
higher drug quantity than the stipulated quantity and that the
district court erred by finding that Barley breached the plea
agreement.

He further argues that the district court erred in

determining the drug quantity attributable to him and that the
sentence is unreasonable and excessive.

The Government contends

that Barley’s appeal is barred by the appeal waiver.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal pursuant to
a valid plea agreement.
627 (4th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621,
Whether a defendant validly waived his

right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de
novo.

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.

2005).

2

Appeal: 11-4213

Document: 35

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

Page: 3 of 4

Barley does not challenge the validity of his plea
agreement or the appeal waiver.
appeal

waiver

is

not

However, he claims that the

enforceable

against

him

because

the

Government breached the plea agreement by seeking a sentence
based on a higher quantity of drugs than stipulated in the plea
agreement.

Furthermore, he argues that the district court erred

by finding that he had violated the terms of his plea agreement.
This court “will not enforce an otherwise valid appeal
waiver against a defendant if the [G]overnment breached the plea
agreement containing that waiver.”
F.3d 490, 495 (4th Cir. 2006).

United States v. Cohen, 459

A criminal defendant asserting

the Government breached a plea agreement bears the burden of
proving

such

a

breach

by

a

preponderance

of

the

evidence.

United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000).
The plea agreement expressly provided that if Barley
failed

to

comply

with

part

of

the

agreement,

the

Government

could “refuse to abide by any provision, stipulations, and/or
recommendations

contained

in

this

plea

agreement.”

After

reviewing the record, we conclude that, prior to sentencing,
Barley engaged in criminal conduct, thus violating the terms of
the plea agreement.

Such a breach released the Government from

its obligations under the agreement.

United States v. Bowe, 309

F.3d 234, 237 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. West, 2 F.3d 66,

3

Appeal: 11-4213

69-70

Document: 35

(4th

Cir.

Date Filed: 11/04/2011

1993).

Page: 4 of 4

Accordingly,

we

conclude

that

the

Government did not breach the plea agreement.
Because

Barley’s

claim

of

the

Government’s

breach

fails, all terms of the plea agreement, including the appeal
waiver,

are

enforceable

against

Barley.

Moreover,

Barley’s

claims on appeal fall squarely within the scope of the appeal
waiver.

Accordingly, we dismiss Barley’s appeal.

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.
DISMISSED

4