US v. Gary C. Gerard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--dismissing appeal in part; administratively terminating Motion to dismiss appeal [1000252333-2]. Originating case number: 2:17-cr-00102-MSD-DEM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000303416]. [17-4713]

Appeal: 17-4713

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY C. GERARD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00102-MSD-DEM-1)

Submitted: May 17, 2018

Decided: May 30, 2018

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Theuer, JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph
Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-4713

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Gary C. Gerard pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of
access with intent to view child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)
(2012), and was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Gerard’s counsel has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Gerard’s guilty plea
was knowingly and voluntarily entered and whether his sentence is reasonable. Although
advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Gerard has not done so. The
Government seeks to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver provision in the
plea agreement.
“A criminal defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and
voluntary.” United States v. Tate, 845 F.3d 571, 574 n.1 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v.
Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). To determine whether the waiver is
knowing and voluntary, this court often looks to the sufficiency of the plea colloquy and
whether the district court questioned the defendant about the appeal waiver, but
ultimately the determination turns on “the totality of the circumstances.” Copeland, 707
F.3d at 528 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In evaluating the totality of the

circumstances, courts consider “the particular facts and circumstances surrounding [the]
case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” United States
v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court
“will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.” Copeland, 707 F.3d at 528 (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

Appeal: 17-4713

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 3 of 4

We have reviewed the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and find that
Gerard knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal both his conviction and
sentence. The district court specifically questioned Gerard about the written appellate
waiver and confirmed that he understood he was waiving his right to appeal by entering
the agreement. The terms of the waiver were “clear and unmistakable.” See Blick, 408
F.3d at 169. Gerard does not contend that the district court failed to question him
concerning the appellate waiver or that he did not understand the full significance of the
waiver. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that Gerard’s appeal waiver
was both knowing and intelligent and, therefore, enforceable as to issues within its scope.
A valid waiver does not bar matters outside the scope of the waiver or prevent this
court from correcting a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182
(4th Cir. 2016). Nor does Gerard’s appeal waiver bar his constitutional challenge to the
knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty plea. See United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727,
732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in ensuring that Gerard’s guilty
plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. Therefore, we
find that his guilty plea was valid and affirm Gerard’s conviction.
Counsel also questions whether Gerard’s sentence was reasonable.

Because

Gerard’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, this claim falls within the scope
of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant, in part, the Government’s motion and dismiss the
appeal as to Gerard’s sentence.

3

Appeal: 17-4713

Doc: 26

Filed: 05/30/2018

Pg: 4 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no other meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore dismiss the portion of
the appeal challenging the reasonableness of Gerard’s sentence based on his valid
appellate waiver and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform Gerard, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Gerard requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a 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 Gerard.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4