US v. Tony Lamont Moore
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999937927-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00069-FL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency.  [16-4362]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
TONY LAMONT MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00069-FL-1)
December 15, 2016
December 19, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Tony Lamont Moore pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine (Count One), and distribution and possession
with intent to distribute heroin (Counts Two and Three), all in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012).
sentenced below his advisory Guidelines range to 148 months’
On appeal, counsel for Moore has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
Moore has not filed a pro se supplemental brief
despite notice of his right to do so.
The Government has moved
to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver included
in Moore’s plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012).
v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014).
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
A defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it
“knowingly and intelligently.”
United States v. Manigan, 592
F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).
Whether a defendant validly
waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review
Pg: 3 of 3
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Moore knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
claim raised on appeal clearly falls within the scope of this
We have reviewed the entire record in accordance
outside the scope of the waiver.
Therefore, we grant the motion
to dismiss and dismiss Moore’s appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Moore, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Moore requests that such a petition 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 Moore.
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.
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?