Opinion
24-4066
08-26-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES GILBERT GREEN, Defendant - Appella
G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: August 22, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:23-cr-00014-M-RN-1)
ON BRIEF:
G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Charles Gilbert Green pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to two counts of distribution of a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Green to 232 months' imprisonment, within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Green's sentence is reasonable. Green was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Green's plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
"We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability" and "will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within its scope." United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[A]n appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it." Id. at 224. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, "we look to the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's experience, conduct, educational background and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms." Id. "When a district court questions a defendant during a [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid." United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021).
Our review of the record confirms that Green knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issue counsel raises falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Green's valid appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government's motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We otherwise affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Green, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Green 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 Green.
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