Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0178-01.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. Kevin CONWAY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4742.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 31, 2001.
    Decided July 10, 2001.
    
      Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, NC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kevin Conway, Jr., pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2242(2) (West 2000), and one count of theft of personal property of a value greater than $1000, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 661 (West 2000). The district court sentenced Conway to 218 months in prison. Conway appeals, challenging his sentence on that ground that the district court erred in determining his criminal history category by relying on information in the presentence investigation report concerning his juvenile adjudications.

■ We find that Conway has had a fair opportunity to challenge the information concerning his juvenile record in the presentence report and has failed to show that the information was incorrect. Consequently, we affirm his sentence. United States v. Inglesi, 988 F.2d 500, 502 (4th Cir.1993). 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.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Conway’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver provision. However, because this provision was not discussed at his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 hearing and there is no other indication in the record that Conway understood the full significance of the waiver, we find that he did not waive his right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.1992).