US v. Antwon Obey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999425756-2] Originating case number: 7:12-cr-00057-F-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999489539]. [13-4871]

Appeal: 13-4871

Doc: 60

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTWON QUARTEZ OBEY, a/k/a Tweezy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cr-00057-F-2)

Submitted:

November 18, 2014

Decided:

December 9, 2014

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Sarah Jessica Farber, FARBER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4871

Doc: 60

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Antwon Quartez Obey seeks to appeal his convictions
and sentence for two counts of conspiracy to commit an offense
against

the

(2012).

United

States,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 371

On appeal, Obey’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
the district court erred in calculating Obey’s Guidelines range.
Obey was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not file one.

The Government has filed a motion

to dismiss Obey’s appeal based on an appellate waiver provision
in the plea agreement.
premature.
and

Obey opposes the Government’s motion as

We grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part

dismiss

Obey’s

appeal

of

his

sentence,

and

we

deny

the

motion in part and affirm Obey’s convictions.
We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate
rights.

United

States

v.

Copeland,

707

F.3d

Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013).

522,

528

(4th

“A defendant may

waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as
the waiver is knowing and voluntary.”
marks omitted).

Id. (internal quotation

Our review of the record leads us to conclude

that, under the totality of the circumstances, Obey’s waiver of
appellate rights was knowing and voluntary and that the waiver
provision is therefore valid and enforceable.
2

See id.; United

Appeal: 13-4871

Doc: 60

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005) (providing
standard).
We will enforce a valid waiver so long as “the issue
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
at 528.

Copeland, 707 F.3d

We conclude that Obey’s challenge to the calculation of

his Guidelines range falls within the scope of the appellate
waiver provision in the plea agreement.

Therefore, we grant the

Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss Obey’s appeal
of his sentence.
The appellate waiver does not, however, preclude our
review of a challenge to the voluntariness of Obey’s plea.

See

United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732–33 & n.2 (4th Cir.
1994).

We have reviewed the plea colloquy for plain error and

conclude that any errors or omissions in the plea colloquy did
not

affect

Obey’s

substantial

rights.

See

United

States

v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating standard of
review); see also Henderson v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121,
1126-27 (2013) (detailing plain error standard).
deny

in

part

the

Government’s

motion

to

dismiss

We therefore
and

affirm

Obey’s convictions.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record

and

have

found

grounds for appeal.

no

unwaived

potentially

meritorious

We therefore affirm Obey’s convictions and

dismiss the appeal of the sentence.
3

This court requires that

Appeal: 13-4871

Doc: 60

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

counsel inform Obey, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Obey

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 Obey.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4