Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-05016/USCOURTS-ca4-07-05016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sean Aaron Mims
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-5016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN AARON MIMS, a/k/a Sean Aaron Mimms,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00150-REP)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig W. Sampson, Sr., BARNES & DIEHL, PC, Chesterfield, Virginia,

for Appellant. Samuel Eugene Fishel, IV, Special Assistant United

States Attorney, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-5016 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Aaron Mims pled guilty to two counts of possession

of child pornography, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West 2000

& Supp. 2008), and was sentenced to the statutory maximum term of

120 months on each count, with the sentences partially concurrent

and partially consecutive, for a total sentence of 168 months

imprisonment. Under the terms of his plea agreement, Mims waived

his right to appeal any sentence within the statutory maximum “on

the grounds set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742

or on any ground whatsoever.” Mims now seeks to contest the

calculation of his advisory guideline range, challenging a fivelevel enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2G2.2(b)(5) (2006), on the ground that the conduct underlying the

enhancement was a separate crime. The government has moved to

dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appeal rights.

Mims concedes that he waived his right to appeal and that

the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Brown,

232 F.3d 399, 402-06 (4th Cir. 2000). He contends that the issue

he seeks to raise is not within the scope of the waiver. We

disagree.

We therefore grant the government’s motion to dismiss and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

Appeal: 07-5016 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-5016 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2008 Pg: 3 of 3