US v. Gerard Well

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999333867].. [13-4309]

Appeal: 13-4309

Doc: 43

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD ONEIL WELLS, a/k/a J,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2)

Submitted:

March 20, 2014

Decided:

April 10, 2014

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James P. Craig, CRAIG LAW FIRM, PC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney,
Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4309

Doc: 43

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gerard

ONeil

Wells

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s amended judgment resentencing him to the lower mandatory
minimum applicable to his drug conspiracy conviction under the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.
Ct. 2321 (2012).

On appeal, Wells contends that his sentence is

unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2012) and that his appeal
waiver does not foreclose review of the issue.

The Government

contends that Wells waived the right to appeal his sentence, and
his appeal should be dismissed.
“Plea

bargains

We dismiss the appeal.

rest

on

contractual

principles,

each party should receive the benefit of its bargain.”

and

United

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and
internal quotations omitted).

“A defendant may waive the right

to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as the waiver is
knowing and voluntary.”

United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349,

354 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d
493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)).

We review the validity of an appeal

waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and
the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”

Id.

(citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Wells
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that
2

Appeal: 13-4309

Doc: 43

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

the issue he seeks to raise on appeal falls within the scope of
the

waiver.

Wells

waived

“the

right

to

contest

either

the

conviction or sentence in any direct appeal or post-conviction
action.”

On

appeal,

he

contends

that

his

waiver

does

not

foreclose review of the issue he seeks to raise, because he was
not aware that he would be sentenced to an unreasonable sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and his sentence is illegal because it
violates 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
without merit.

We conclude that these arguments are

See United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532,

537-39 (4th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3