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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?