US v. Kendrick Davi


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4095 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4095 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENDRICK DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?