Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04442/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04442-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerrell Watson Carter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JERRELL WATSON CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (6:05-cr-00015-NKM-1)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sidney H. Kirstein, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4442 Doc: 55 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

Although the district court failed to question Carter at the

Rule 11 hearing about the appellate waiver in violation of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(b)(N), because Carter does not assert that he was

unaware of the waiver or that the district court’s failure affected

the outcome of his guilty plea, he cannot establish plain error.

See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 n.5 (4th Cir. 2002)

(holding that the district court’s failure to strictly comply with

Rule 11 is subject to plain error review).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerrell Watson Carter pled guilty to possession with

intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), and aiding and abetting the use of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). On appeal, Carter claims that the

Government’s proffer at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was

insufficient to support the firearm conviction and that the

district court incorrectly calculated his criminal history

category. The Government asserts the appeal should be dismissed

because Carter knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to

appeal. Because we find the appeal waiver was knowing and

voluntary and that the issues raised by Carter are within the scope

of the waiver, we dismiss the appeal.

Carter’s plea agreement contained an appellate waiver

that stated he waived the right to appeal “any and all issues

related to [his] guilty plea and sentencing.” The record reveals

that Carter agreed to this waiver knowingly and voluntarily.* See

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005).

Appeal: 07-4442 Doc: 55 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Moreover, Carter does not dispute that the issues he raises on

appeal fall within the purview of his appellate waiver. See id. at

169-70. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Carter’s appeal. 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

Appeal: 07-4442 Doc: 55 Filed: 01/22/2008 Pg: 3 of 3