Case ID: f-appx_142/html/0762-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Minnie HERRING, Defendant— Appellant.
    No. 05-4126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 17, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 7, 2005.
    Michael D. Montemarano, Michael D. Montemarano, P.A., Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney, Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Minnie Herring appeals her sentence following a guilty plea to theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2000). In light of the valid appellate waiver provisions in her plea agreement, we dismiss the appeal.

Herring made a knowing and voluntary decision to forego her right to appeal in her plea agreement, see United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.1995), and the district court properly reviewed the waiver provisions with her at her plea hearing. See United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53-54 (4th Cir.1990). Under these circumstances, we find Herring has waived her right to appeal her sentence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), does not alter our decision. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir.2005) (“[P]ostplea legal changes to applicable penalties do not provide a basis for upsetting a guilty plea.”); United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169-70 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that Booker does not render an otherwise valid appellate waiver unknowing or involuntary).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny Herring’s motion to remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED