US v. Anthony McIntosh

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [999242275-2] Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00039-AW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999284431]. [13-4460]--[Edited 01/27/2014 by CH]

Appeal: 13-4460

Doc: 32

Filed: 01/27/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MCINTOSH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00039-AW-1)

Submitted:

January 23, 2014

Decided:

January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Harold M. Vaught, Norwalk, California, for Appellant. April J.
Anderson, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4460

Doc: 32

Filed: 01/27/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Anthony McIntosh seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence

for

investigation,

falsification
in

of

violation

records

of

18

in

U.S.C.

a

federal

§ 1519

(2012).

McIntosh pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and
was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment.

On appeal,

counsel

Anders

for

McIntosh

filed

a

brief

pursuant

to

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the calculation of
McIntosh’s

sentence.

McIntosh

has

not

filed

a

pro

supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so.
Government

has

moved

to

dismiss

the

appeal

as

barred

se
The
by

McIntosh’s waiver of the right to appeal, included in the plea
agreement.
We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013).

We generally will enforce a

waiver “if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and
that

the

waiver.”

issue

being

appealed

is

within

the

scope

of

the

United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th

Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 196 (2012).

A defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to

it “knowingly and intelligently.”
F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).
2

United States v. Manigan, 592

Appeal: 13-4460

Doc: 32

Filed: 01/27/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that McIntosh
knowingly

and

conviction

voluntarily

and

sentence.

waived

his

Because

right

the

to

appeal

Government

seeks

his
to

enforce this knowing and voluntary waiver, we grant the motion
to

dismiss

in

part

and

dismiss

McIntosh’s

appeal

as

to

the

claims raised in the Anders brief, which are clearly within the
waiver’s scope.

As to any remaining issues, we have reviewed

the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment

as

to

all

issues not encompassed by McIntosh’s valid waiver of appellate
rights.
This court requires that counsel inform McIntosh, in
writing,

of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If McIntosh 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 McIntosh.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 13-4460

before

Doc: 32

this

court

Filed: 01/27/2014

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4