US v. Ernest Wright
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [999412226-2] Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00126-FL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460980].. [14-4322]
Appeal: 14-4322
Doc: 29
Filed: 10/23/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4322
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST JOSHON WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:12-cr-00126-FL-1)
Submitted:
October 21, 2014
Decided:
October 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
John Keating Wiles, CHESHIRE, PARKER, SCHNEIDER & BRYAN, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4322
Doc: 29
Filed: 10/23/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Ernest
Joshon
Wright
appeals
his
conviction
and
sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute
cocaine,
oxycodone,
methadone,
and
marijuana,
in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and possession of a firearm
by
a
convicted
(2012).
felon,
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1)
Wright pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement
and was sentenced to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment.
On
appeal, counsel for Wright has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious
issues
for
appeal
but
questioning
whether
the
district court erred in finding at sentencing that Wright is a
“very dangerous person.”
brief
alleging
Wright has filed a pro se supplemental
ineffective
prosecutorial misconduct.
the
appeal
as
barred
by
assistance
of
trial
counsel
and
The government has moved to dismiss
the
appellate
waiver
included
in
Wright’s 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
waiver.”
issue
being
appealed
is
within
the
scope
of
the
United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th
Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
A defendant’s
Appeal: 14-4322
Doc: 29
waiver
is
Filed: 10/23/2014
valid
intelligently.”
if
he
Pg: 3 of 4
agreed
to
it
“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 Wright
knowingly
and
conviction
voluntarily
and
sentence,
waived
with
his
certain
right
to
appeal
specified
his
exceptions.
Because the government seeks to enforce this valid waiver, we
grant the motion to dismiss in part and dismiss Wright’s appeal
as to the sentencing claim raised in the Anders brief, which is
clearly within the waiver’s scope.
We
decline
to
consider
Wright’s
pro
se
claim
of
ineffective assistance of counsel because the record does not
conclusively
establish
representation.
(4th
Cir.
2008)
any
deficiencies
in
counsel’s
See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435
(providing
standard).
Such
challenges
to
counsel’s performance are not cognizable on direct appeal and
must be pursued, if at all, in a proceeding for postconviction
relief.
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th
Cir. 2010).
We have reviewed Wright’s remaining pro se claim and
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
3
court’s
judgment
as
to
all
Appeal: 14-4322
Doc: 29
Filed: 10/23/2014
Pg: 4 of 4
issues not encompassed by Wright’s broad waiver of appellate
rights.
This
writing,
of
court
the
requires
right
to
that
petition
United States for further review.
counsel
the
inform
Supreme
Wright,
Court
of
in
the
If Wright 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 Wright.
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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED 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?