US v. Maurice Hardy

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [999233133-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00358-ELH-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999303177].. [13-4513]

Appeal: 13-4513

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE HARDY, a/k/a Reece,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00358-ELH-2)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Craig M. Sandberg, MUSLIN & SANDBERG, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christine
Marie Celeste, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4513

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

Hardy

his

PER CURIAM:
Maurice

appeals

conviction

and

192-month

sentence following his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) guilty plea
to

conspiring

to

distribute

and

possess

with

intent

to

distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, one kilogram or
more of heroin, and a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of
21

U.S.C.

§ 846

(2012).

In

accordance

with

Anders

v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hardy’s counsel has filed a
brief

certifying

that

there

are

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal but questioning whether (1) the district court adequately
complied with Rule 11 when accepting Hardy’s plea, (2) Hardy’s
sentence is reasonable, and (3) Hardy received the effective
assistance of counsel.

Although informed of his right to do so,

Hardy has not filed a supplemental brief.

The Government moves

to dismiss Hardy’s appeal to the extent the issues he raises are
barred by the appellate waiver in Hardy’s plea agreement, which,
in pertinent part, waives Hardy’s right to appeal his conviction
or a sentence equal to or less than 192 months’ imprisonment.
We grant in part and deny in part the Government’s motion.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012).

See, e.g.,

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).

A

valid waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue
is within the scope of the waiver.
2

United States v. Blick, 408

Appeal: 13-4513

F.3d

Doc: 23

162,

Filed: 02/25/2014

168

(4th

Cir.

Pg: 3 of 4

2005).

Whether

a

defendant

validly

waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review
de novo.

Id.
Here,

Hardy

does

not

contest

the

validity

of

his

appellate waiver, and the record indicates that it was knowing
and

voluntary.

enforceable,

the

the

reasonableness

is

We

part

to

waiver

sentence falls squarely within the scope of his waiver.
in

challenge

appellate

his

grant

his

Hardy’s

of

therefore

and

Accordingly,

Government’s

motion

and

dismiss

Hardy’s appeal of his sentence.
To the extent Hardy challenges the voluntariness of
his plea, that claim is outside the scope of the waiver.
district

court

fully

complied

with

Rule

11

when

The

accepting

Hardy’s plea and ensured that the plea was knowing and voluntary
and, therefore, final and binding.

United States v. Lambey, 974

F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Finally, because

there is no clear indication that Hardy’s counsel was deficient,
we decline to review this claim on direct appeal.

See United

States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 531 n.7 (4th Cir.) (providing
standard), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record
appeal.
part.

and

have

found

no

unwaived

meritorious

grounds

for

We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in
This

court

requires

that
3

counsel

inform

Hardy,

in

Appeal: 13-4513

Doc: 23

writing,

of

his

Filed: 02/25/2014

right

to

Pg: 4 of 4

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Hardy requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.

Counsel's motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Hardy.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4