US v. Michael Bassett, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [999494829-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cr-00120-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999538802]. [14-4577]

Appeal: 14-4577

Doc: 34

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL THOMAS BASSETT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:13-cr-00120-D-1)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-4577

Doc: 34

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Thomas Bassett, Jr., pled guilty to one count
of

receipt

of

§ 2252(a)(2)

child

(2012),

pornography,
and

was

in

violation

sentenced

to

of

210

18

U.S.C.

months

of

imprisonment, the bottom of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range.

On appeal, Bassett’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence
by sentencing him within the imprisonment range called for by
U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§

2G2.2

Government has filed a motion to dismiss.

(2013).

The

For the reasons that

follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
A

defendant

may

waive

the

waiver is knowing and intelligent.
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007).

right

to

appeal

if

that

United States v. Poindexter,
Generally, if the district

court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance
with

Fed.

R.

enforceable.

Crim.

P.

11,

the

waiver

is

both

valid

and

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).

The question of whether a defendant validly waived

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

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2

Appeal: 14-4577

Doc: 34

2005).

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

Bassett knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence, except for circumstances not extant in this appeal.
His plea hearing was conducted in compliance with Rule 11 and we
therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of
Bassett’s sentence.
In
remainder

accordance

of

the

with

record

Anders,

in

this

we

case

have
and

reviewed
have

found

the
no

meritorious issues not foreclosed by Bassett’s appellate waiver.
We therefore affirm Bassett’s conviction.
that

counsel

inform

Bassett,

in
the

petition

the

Supreme

Court

of

review.

If

Bassett

requests

This court requires

writing,

that

of

United
a

the

States

petition

right

for

be

to

further

filed,

but

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel

may

move

representation.

in

this

court

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Bassett.

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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

3