US v. Christopher Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal, in part. [999778762-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00356-JKB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999895682]. [15-4632]

Appeal: 15-4632

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER V. JOHNSON, a/k/a Christopher Miller, a/k/a Milla
on Deck,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14cr-00356-JKB-1)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 25, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Thomas J. Saunders, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Zachary
Augustus Myers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4632

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Christopher V. Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), and aggravated identity theft,
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), (c)(4), (c)(5) (2012); 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2012).

The district court sentenced him to 78 months on the bank

fraud charge and a consecutive 24 months for the identity theft.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the propriety of
the

sentencing

enhancements

imposed

for

leadership

role,

obstruction of justice, and engaging in reckless and dangerous
behavior.

Counsel also questions whether the district court

properly computed Johnson’s criminal history category and whether
trial counsel provided effective assistance.

Although advised of

his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Johnson has not
done so.

The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

based on the appeal waiver in Johnson’s plea agreement.

We affirm

in part, and dismiss in part.
“A defendant may waive the right to appeal his conviction and
sentence so long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary.”

United

States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United
States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)).

We review

the validity of an appeal waiver de novo, and we “will enforce the

2

Appeal: 15-4632

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope
of the waiver.”

Id. at 354-55 (citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).

We have reviewed the plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, and we conclude that Johnson’s guilty plea and his
appeal waiver were knowing and voluntary.
that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

We therefore conclude
Johnson’s challenges to

the enhancements to his sentence and to the computation of his
criminal history category are squarely foreclosed by the appellate
waiver.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss

the appeal, in part.
Johnson

also

asserted

that

assistance of trial counsel.
conclusively

appears

on

he

was

denied

the

effective

Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness

the

face

of

the

record,

ineffective

assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

§

2255

(2012),

development of the record.

in

establish

to

permit

sufficient

United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d

214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010).
conclusively

order

that

Because the record does not
counsel

provided

ineffective

assistance to Johnson, we conclude that these claims should be
raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record for
any potentially meritorious, unwaived issues, and we have found
3

Appeal: 15-4632

none.

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/25/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.

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

If Johnson requests that a petition be filed, but

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

may

move

representation.

this

and

materials

legal
before

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Johnson.
facts

court

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4