US v. Larry Taylor, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999372424-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00087-JRS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999470484].. [14-4347]

Appeal: 14-4347

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LARRY LAWSON TAYLOR, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cr-00087-JRS-1)

Submitted:

October 30, 2014

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

November 6, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Lee Everhart, RICE AND EVERHART, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4347

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Larry Lawson Taylor, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
cocaine

base.

On

appeal,

Taylor’s

counsel

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

the

district

court

appropriately

statutory sentencing factors.

considered

the

The Government moves to dismiss

the appeal based upon Taylor’s appellate waiver provision in his
plea agreement.

Taylor has filed a pro se supplemental brief,

alleging that he was improperly sentenced because the court did
not

subpoena

his

psychiatrist

or

consider

his

mitigation

evidence and because his counsel did not properly prepare and
present his mitigation evidence.

After careful consideration of

the entire record, we affirm.
We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate
rights.
2005).

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
“A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that

waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.”

United States v. Amaya-Portillo,

423

2005)

F.3d

427,

omitted).

To

intelligent,

we

430

(4th

determine
look

“to

Cir.

whether
the

(internal

the

totality

waiver
of

quotation
is

the

marks

knowing

and

circumstances,

including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as
2

Appeal: 14-4347

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the
terms of the plea agreement.”
F.3d

389,

400

(4th

Cir.

United States v. General, 278

2002)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Here, we find that the totality of the circumstances
leads

to

the

enforceable.
thirty-four

conclusion

that

the

waiver

is

valid

and

At the time Taylor entered his guilty plea, he was
years

old,

had

an

eleventh

grade

education,

was

adjudged competent to plead guilty, and had experience with the
court system.
read,

The plea agreement — which Taylor acknowledged he

discussed

with

counsel,

and

understood

—

clearly

and

unambiguously set out the appellate waiver provision, and the
district court specifically questioned Taylor’s understanding of
the

waiver

States

provision

v.

during

Lemaster,

403

the

F.3d

plea

216,

colloquy.
221-22

See
Cir.

(4th

United
2005)

(explaining that, absent compelling evidence to the contrary,
“the truth of sworn statements made during a Rule 11 colloquy is
conclusively established”).
asserted

that

he

did

not

Further, at no point has Taylor
understand

the

plea

general or the waiver provision in particular.
that

Taylor’s

voluntary,

and

waiver
the

of

waiver

appellate
provision

enforceable.

3

rights
is

was

agreement

in

Thus, we find
knowing

therefore

valid

and
and

Appeal: 14-4347

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

We will enforce a valid waiver so long as “the issue
being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
F.3d at 168.

Blick, 408

It is apparent that the sentencing issues raised

by counsel in the Anders brief and by Taylor in his supplemental
brief fall within the scope of the appellate waiver provision,
which

“waive[d]

the

right

to

appeal

the

conviction

and

any

sentence within the statutory maximum . . . (or the manner in
which

that

sentence

whatsoever.”

Both

was

determined)

Taylor

and

his

.

.

.

counsel

on

any

argue

ground

that

his

sentence was the result of errors by the district court and,
according

to

Taylor,

by

his

attorney.

As

Taylor’s

waiver

contained no exemptions and barred challenges to both Taylor’s
conviction and sentence, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss.
In

so

doing,

we

recognize

that

fundamental issues that cannot be waived.

there

are

certain

However, our review

of the record in accordance with Anders has not disclosed any
unwaived

and

potentially

meritorious

Accordingly, we dismiss Taylor’s appeal.

issues

for

review.

This court requires

that counsel inform Taylor, in writing, of his right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If

Taylor 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
4

from

representation.

Appeal: 14-4347

Doc: 30

Filed: 11/06/2014

Pg: 5 of 5

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Taylor.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

5