US v. Ernest Dailey
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999666439-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cr-00072-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999704486].. [15-4197]
Appeal: 15-4197
Doc: 33
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST DAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cr-00072-F-1)
Submitted:
November 19, 2015
Decided:
November 23, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-4197
Doc: 33
Filed: 11/23/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Ernest
sentence
Dailey
imposed
appeals
following
his
his
convictions
guilty
and
plea,
262-month
pursuant
to
a
written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012), and to possession of a firearm in
furtherance
of
a
drug
trafficking
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012).
crime,
in
violation
of
18
On appeal, Dailey’s counsel
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
sentence.
the
substantive
reasonableness
of
Dailey’s
The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based
on the appellate waiver provision of the plea agreement.
We
dismiss.
We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
States
v.
Copeland,
707
F.3d
522,
528
(4th
Cir.
United
2013).
A
defendant’s waiver of his appeal rights is valid if he agreed to
it “knowingly and intelligently.”
F.3d
621,
627
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Manigan, 592
2010).
Upon
review
of
the
plea
agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing,
we conclude that Dailey knowingly and voluntarily waived his
right to appeal and that the issue Dailey seeks to raise on
appeal
falls
squarely
appellate rights.
within
the
scope
of
See Copeland, 707 F.3d at 528.
his
waiver
of
Appeal: 15-4197
Doc: 33
In
Filed: 11/23/2015
accordance
with
Pg: 3 of 3
Anders,
we
have
reviewed
the
entire
record for potentially meritorious issues not covered by the
waiver
and
found
none.
We
motion and dismiss the appeal.
therefore
grant
the
Government’s
This court requires that counsel
inform Dailey, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If
Dailey
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 Dailey.
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
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?