US v. April Locklear

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999882495-2]. Originating case number: 7:15-cr-00033-D-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999939707]. [16-4107]

Appeal: 16-4107

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
APRIL LYNN LOCKLEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:15-cr-00033-D-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4107

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
April

Lynn

agreement,

to

Locklear

pled

conspiracy

to

guilty,
make

pursuant

false

bank

to

a

plea

entries,

in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1005 (2012), and the district
court

imposed

imprisonment.

a

downward

variant

sentence

of

24

months’

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

386

U.S.

meritorious

grounds

738
for

(1967),
appeal

stating

but

that

questioning

there

are

whether

no
the

district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for
obstruction of justice.

Locklear was informed of her right to

file a pro se informal brief, but chose not to do so.

The

Government moves to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal
waiver provision in Locklear’s plea agreement.

For the reasons

that follow, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
“We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo, and
will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is
within the scope of the waiver.”
F.3d

522,

omitted).

528

(4th

Cir.

United States v. Copeland, 707

2013)

(internal

quotation

marks

“The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether

the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the
right to appeal.”
(4th Cir. 2005).
intelligent,

we

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169
To determine whether a waiver is knowing and
examine

“the

totality

of

the

circumstances

. . . , including the background, experience, and conduct of the
2

Appeal: 16-4107

Doc: 31

accused.”

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Generally,

if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver
of appellate rights during the [plea] colloquy and the record
indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of
the waiver, the waiver is valid.”

Copeland, 707 F.3d at 528

(internal quotation marks omitted).
The

language

of

the

appeal

waiver

in

Locklear’s

plea

agreement is clear and unambiguous, and the record reveals that
Locklear understood the full significance of the waiver.

The

court also confirmed that Locklear was competent to plead guilty
and was entering her plea in the absence of threats, force, or
promises

outside

of

those

contained

in

the

plea

agreement.

Accordingly, we conclude that Locklear’s appeal waiver is valid
and enforceable.
We

also

obstruction

conclude

of

justice

scope of the waiver.
accordance

with

that

Locklear’s

enhancement

falls

challenge
squarely

to

within

the
the

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in

Anders

and

have

identified

no

potentially

meritorious issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal
waiver.

We therefore grant the Government’s motion and dismiss

Locklear’s

appeal.

This

court

requires

that

counsel

inform

Locklear, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review.
that

a

petition

be

filed,

but
3

counsel

If Locklear requests
believes

that

such

a

Appeal: 16-4107

Doc: 31

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

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 thereof was served on Locklear.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4