US v. Christopher Beebe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cr-00194-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000018468].. [15-4770]

Appeal: 15-4770

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BRIT BEEBE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cr-00194-CMC-1)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 7, 2017

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Nicolette Mace, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., William E. Day, II, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4770

Doc: 31

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Brit Beebe seeks to appeal his conviction and
97-month

sentence

for

conspiracy

to

distribute

controlled

substances, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(E) (2012), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012).

In its brief, the

Government argues that the appeal should be dismissed as barred
by Beebe’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea
agreement.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Beebe
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that
the issues Beebe seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within
the

compass

Beebe’s

of

his

assertion

agreement.

waiver
that

of

the

appellate
Government

rights.

We

breached

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

reject

the

plea

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

2