UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY JEROME MACKLIN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00507-ELH-1)

Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael 

Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Jerome Macklin, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to 

one count of Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2012). The district 

court sentenced Macklin to 216 months in prison in accordance with his stipulated plea 

agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Macklin’s 

sentence. Macklin was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he 

has not done so. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the 

appellate waiver in Macklin’s plea agreement. We dismiss in part, and affirm in part.

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and 

intelligent. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Our 

independent review of the record confirms that Macklin voluntarily and knowingly 

waived his right to appeal his conviction and any sentence imposed. Thus, the waiver is 

valid and enforceable.

Even a valid waiver does not waive all appellate claims, however. Specifically, a 

valid appeal waiver does not preclude a challenge to a sentence on the ground that it 

exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally impermissible factor 

such as race, arises from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on 

ineffective assistance of counsel, or relates to claims concerning a violation of the Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel in proceedings following the guilty plea. See United States 

v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175, 178 
3

(4th Cir. 1993). In accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the 

entire record for any unwaived, meritorious issues for appeal and have found none. 

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, in part, and 

dismiss Macklin’s challenge to his sentence. Although we deny the motion, in part, as to 

any unwaived issues, we affirm, in part. This court requires that counsel inform Macklin, 

in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Macklin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Macklin. 

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 in the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART