US v. Chester Wheele

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00238-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999489503].. [14-4248]

Appeal: 14-4248

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHESTER LAMAR WHEELESS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00238-F-1)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

December 9, 2014

Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Phillip A. Rubin, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4248

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Chester Lamar Wheeless pleaded guilty to obstruction
of commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012),
and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012).

The district

court sentenced Wheeless to 141 months of imprisonment and he
now

appeals.

For

the

reasons

that

follow,

we

dismiss

the

appeal.
On
plainly

appeal,

erred

in

Wheeless

failing

to

argues
provide

that

the

him

an

district

court

opportunity

to

withdraw his guilty plea after rejecting one of the non-binding
Guidelines stipulations in the plea agreement.
has

asserted

that

Wheeless’

appellate

The Government

waiver

in

the

plea

agreement bars review of this claim.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012).
States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).

United
A waiver

will preclude appeal of a specific issue if the waiver is valid
and

the

issue

is

within

the

scope

of

the

waiver.

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).

United
Whether a

defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of
law that this court reviews de novo.

Id. at 168.

“The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the
defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right
2

Appeal: 14-4248

Doc: 30

Filed: 12/09/2014

to appeal.”

Id. at 169.

questions

defendant

a

Pg: 3 of 3

Generally, if the district court fully

regarding

the

waiver

of

his

right

to

appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable.

United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th

Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th
Cir. 1991).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude

that Wheeless knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive his
right to appeal and that the issue Wheeless seeks to raise on
appeal falls squarely within the scope of the appellate waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

We dispense with

legal
before

contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3