US v. Christopher William
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting in part Motion to dismiss appeal [999342514-2] Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00123-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999368995].. [13-4942]
Appeal: 13-4942
Doc: 33
Filed: 06/04/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4942
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER JASON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00123-D-1)
Submitted:
May 27, 2014
Decided:
June 4, 2014
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
David L. Neal, Hillsborough, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-4942
Doc: 33
Filed: 06/04/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Christopher
sentence
following
Jason
his
Williams
guilty
plea
appeals
to
two
his
540-month
counts
of
sex
trafficking of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1),
(b)(2) (2012).
Counsel has 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 Williams’
sentence is reasonable. *
supplemental
pro
se
Although advised of his right to file a
brief,
Williams
has
not
done
so.
The
Government seeks to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate
waiver provision 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 issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.”
United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
A
defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
*
Specifically, counsel questions whether the district court
imposed “an unreasonable sentence by treating the Guidelines
provisions for sexual exploitation as reasonable, by not giving
sufficient weight to the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [2012] factors,
and by not downwardly departing given Williams’s history of
traumatic sexual abuse as a four-year-old boy.”
(Anders Brief
at 1).
2
Appeal: 13-4942
Doc: 33
Filed: 06/04/2014
intelligently.”
Pg: 3 of 4
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010).
“Although the validity of an appeal waiver
often depends on the adequacy of the plea colloquy, the issue
ultimately
is
evaluated
by
reference
to
the
totality
of
the
circumstances,” United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349, 355 (4th
Cir.
2012)
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted),
such
as
“the
experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s
educational background and familiarity with the terms of the
plea
agreement.”
Thornsbury,
670
F.3d
at
537
(internal
quotation marks omitted).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Williams knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal
his sentence.
Because the issues he seeks to raise on appeal
fall within the scope of the waiver, we grant the Government’s
motion to dismiss Williams’ appeal of his sentence and dismiss
this portion of the appeal.
Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement
precludes
our
review
of
the
sentence,
the
waiver
does
not
preclude our review of any errors in Williams’ conviction that
may be revealed pursuant to the review required by Anders.
In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues that are outside the scope of
the appeal waiver.
We therefore affirm the district court’s
3
Appeal: 13-4942
Doc: 33
Filed: 06/04/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
judgment as to all issues not encompassed by Williams’ valid
waiver of his right to appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in
writing,
of
his
right
to
petition
United States for further review.
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
If Williams 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 Williams.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED 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?