US v. Tavon McPhaul

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999426138-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00616-MJG-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999595264].. [14-4172]

Appeal: 14-4172

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4172

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAVON MCPHAUL, a/k/a Block,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00616-MJG-3)

Submitted:

May 14, 2015

Decided:

June 3, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beth M. Farber, HARRIS O’BRIEN, New York, New York, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bonnie S.
Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin M. Block,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4172

Doc: 38

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tavon McPhaul seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence
after pleading guilty.

McPhaul’s attorney has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
the issue of whether McPhaul waived the right to appeal his
conviction and sentence, but concluding that he knowingly and
intelligently did so and there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal.

The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based in

part on the appeal waiver.

McPhaul was notified of his right to

file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
“Plea

bargains

rest

on

contractual

principles,

party should receive the benefit of its bargain.”
v.

Blick,

408

F.3d

162,

173

(4th

Cir.

internal quotation marks omitted).
right

to

appeal

his

conviction

each

United States
(citation

and

“A defendant may waive the

and

waiver is knowing and voluntary.”

2005)

and

sentence

so

long

as

the

United States v. Davis, 689

F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Marin,
961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)).

We review the validity of

an appeal waiver de novo “and will enforce the waiver if it is
valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
Id. at 354-55 (citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that McPhaul knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
2

Appeal: 14-4172

Doc: 38

sentence.

Filed: 06/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed

the record for any potentially meritorious issues that might
fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal.

This court requires that counsel inform his or her

client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review.

If the client

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 the client.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3