US v. Ernest Dailey


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4197 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4197 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERNEST DAILEY, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?