US v. Brandon Sackrider

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999722777-2]. Originating case number: 5:14-cr-00026-RLV-DSC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999766053]. [15-4335]

Appeal: 15-4335

Doc: 45

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRANDON SCOTT SACKRIDER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:14-cr-00026-RLV-DSC-1)

Submitted:

February 16, 2016

Decided:

March 2, 2016

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4335

Doc: 45

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Brandon Scott Sackrider pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute heroin and Xanax.
188 months in prison.

He now appeals.

He was sentenced to

His attorney filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning
the voluntariness of the plea but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal.

Sackrider filed a pro se brief

claiming that he was incorrectly sentenced as a career offender.
We ordered supplemental briefing on this issue.

After Sackrider’s

attorney responded to our order, the United States moved to dismiss
the appeal on the basis of a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision
in Sackrider’s plea agreement.

We grant the motion to dismiss the

appeal.
Upon review of the record, including the plea agreement and
the transcripts of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding and the
sentencing

hearing,

we

knowing and voluntary.

conclude

that

Sackrider’s

waiver

was

The record reflects substantial compliance

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.

Sackrider represented to the court that

he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, with whom he
had discussed his case and reviewed the plea agreement.

Sackrider

stated that the factual basis for the plea was accurate, he was
guilty, and the plea was not the result of threats or promises
other

than

those

promises

contained
2

in

the

plea

agreement.

Appeal: 15-4335

Doc: 45

Notably,

the

Filed: 03/02/2016

court

Pg: 3 of 4

questioned

Sackrider

about

the

waiver

provision, which was clearly set forth in a separate paragraph of
the plea agreement.

Sackrider stated that he understood that he

was waiving his appellate rights.
We further find that the issue Sackrider seeks to raise on
appeal—whether, under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), a prior North Carolina conviction qualified as a predicate
felony for career offender status—falls within the scope of the
waiver. *

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for
meritorious nonwaivable issues, see United States v. Johnson, 410
F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005), and have found none.
dismiss the appeal.

We therefore

This court requires that counsel inform

Sackrider, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United State for further review.

If Sackrider requests

that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that the
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 of the motion was served on Sackrider.

We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

*

Sackrider agreed to waive his right to appeal both his
conviction and sentence, with certain exceptions not relevant
here.
3

Appeal: 15-4335

Doc: 45

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4