US v. David Richardson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion-- [999320772-2]; dismissing Motion for determination of standing filed by Appellant David Richardson [999312555-2], granting dismissing appeal in part Originating case number: 4:13-cr-00006-RGD-TEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999366834].. [13-4979]

Appeal: 13-4979

Doc: 36

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID RICHARDSON,
Dakim,

a/k/a

Kerry

Webber,

a/k/a

Dad,

a/k/a

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00006-RGD-TEM-1)

Submitted:

May 29, 2014

Decided:

June 2, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Timothy V. Anderson, ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United
States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4979

Doc: 36

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
David Richardson seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A),

846

(2012).

Richardson

pled

guilty

pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to 260
months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel for Richardson filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning the application of the career offender enhancement
in the calculation of Richardson’s sentence.

Richardson has not

filed a supplemental pro se brief despite notice of his right to
do so.

The government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred

by Richardson’s waiver of the right to appeal, included in the
plea

agreement.

opposition

to

Counsel

the

motion

for
to

Richardson
dismiss

and

has

responded

has

moved

in

for

a

determination of Richardson’s standing to pursue an appeal in
light of the appellate waiver.
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
2

Appeal: 13-4979

Doc: 36

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 3 of 4

Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
waiver

is

valid

intelligently.”

if

he

agreed

to

it

A defendant’s
“knowingly

and

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627

(4th Cir. 2010).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Richardson
knowingly

and

conviction

voluntarily

and

sentence.

waived

his

Because

the

right

to

appeal

government

seeks

his
to

enforce this valid waiver, we grant the motion to dismiss in
part and dismiss Richardson’s appeal as to the claim raised in
the Anders brief, which is clearly within the waiver’s scope.
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 Richardson’s broad waiver of
appellate rights.

We dismiss as moot Richardson’s motion for a

determination of standing.
This court requires that counsel inform Richardson, in
writing,

of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Richardson 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 Richardson.
3

Appeal: 13-4979

Doc: 36

Filed: 06/02/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4