US v. Kendrick Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999900599-2] Originating case number: 7:15-cr-00075-H-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999939736].. [16-4095]

Appeal: 16-4095

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENDRICK DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:15-cr-00075-H-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4095

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kendrick Davis pled guilty to distribution of Fentanyl, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and was
sentenced at the bottom of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range to 151 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel for Davis

has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967),

asserting

that

there

are

no

meritorious

issues

for

appeal and acknowledging Davis’ waiver of appellate rights but
questioning

whether

substantively

the

reasonable.

district
Davis

court’s

sentence

not

a

has

filed

was

pro

supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so.

se
The

Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
appellate waiver included in Davis’ plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012).

United States

v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015).

A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a

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

is

valid

intelligently.”
(4th Cir. 2010).

if

he

agreed

to

it

Id.

A defendant’s

“knowingly

and

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
Whether a defendant validly waived his right

to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo.
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
2

United

Appeal: 16-4095

Doc: 27

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Davis knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence.

The sentencing claim raised on appeal clearly falls

within the scope of this broad waiver.
entire

record

in

accordance

with

Anders

We have reviewed the
and

have

found

no

meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Davis’
appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Davis 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 Davis.

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

3