Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04770/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04770-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Brit Beebe
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER BRIT BEEBE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior 

District Judge. (3:15-cr-00194-CMC-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Nicolette Mace, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, Robert F. Daley, Jr., William E. Day, II, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4770 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/07/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Brit Beebe seeks to appeal his conviction and 

97-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute controlled 

substances, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(E) (2012), and 

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking 

crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). In its brief, the 

Government argues that the appeal should be dismissed as barred 

by Beebe’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea 

agreement. Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript 

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Beebe

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that 

the issues Beebe seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within 

the compass of his waiver of appellate rights. We reject 

Beebe’s assertion that the Government breached the plea 

agreement. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-4770 Doc: 31 Filed: 02/07/2017 Pg: 2 of 2