United States v. Robinson, 042219 FED4, 18-4476
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM:|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Jenifer Wicks, LAW OFFICES OF JENIFER WICKS, Takoma Park, Maryland, for Appellant. Christine Oi Jyn Goo, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 22, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: April 18, 2019
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00017-ELH-10)
Jenifer Wicks, LAW OFFICES OF JENIFER WICKS, Takoma Park, Maryland, for Appellant.
Christine Oi Jyn Goo, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
William Robinson pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Robinson to 144 months in prison in accordance with his stipulated plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), discussing the validity of Robinson's guilty plea, counsel's effectiveness, and the reasonableness of Robinson's sentence. Robinson was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in Robinson's plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and intelligent. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Our independent review of the record confirms that Robinson voluntarily and knowingly waived his right to appeal his conviction and any sentence imposed. Thus, the waiver is valid and enforceable and, in accordance with the terms of his plea agreement, Robinson may not challenge the reasonableness of his sentence-to which he expressly agreed-or his conviction on appeal.
Even a valid waiver does not waive all appellate claims, however. Specifically, a valid appeal waiver does not preclude a challenge to a sentence on the ground that it exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP