UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY EARL ARTIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:11-cr-00014-H-1)

Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Mary Jude Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey Earl Artis pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 

924 (2006). He was sentenced to fifty-two months’ imprisonment, 

and has noted this appeal. Artis’ attorney filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting 

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning 

whether the district court erred in denying Artis’ motion to 

dismiss the indictment. Artis was advised of his right to file 

a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. Upon our 

initial review of the appeal, we directed supplemental briefing 

regarding whether either of Artis’ North Carolina convictions 

for eluding arrest with a motor vehicle qualifies as a crime of 

violence under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2011). The Government has now moved to 

dismiss the appeal, asserting that Artis’ plea agreement

contained a waiver of the right to appeal his sentence. Artis 

opposes the motion. We grant the motion in part, affirm in 

part, and dismiss in part. 

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan, 

592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly 
3

waived his appeal rights is a question of law that we review de 

novo. Id. at 626. The validity of a waiver is assessed under 

the totality of the circumstances, id. at 627, but if the 

district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his 

right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the 

waiver is generally found to be valid and enforceable. United 

States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United 

States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2002). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Artis knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal a 

sentence, like the one imposed here, that is within the scope of 

the Guidelines range, and that the supplementally briefed issue 

is within the scope of that waiver. We therefore grant in part 

the Government’s motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal of 

Artis’ sentence. 

The waiver does not preclude review of whether the 

district court erred in denying Artis’ pro se motion to dismiss 

the indictment charging him as a felon in possession of a 

firearm. In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss an 

indictment, we review the district court’s factual findings for 

clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. 

Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir. 2005).
4

In his pro se motion, Artis relied on our decision in 

United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc)

(holding that consideration of hypothetical aggravating factors 

and criminal history is inappropriate when determining whether 

prior offense constitutes felony). A review of Artis’ criminal 

history reveals he was convicted of receiving stolen property of 

a value greater than $1000 in Delaware, in violation of Del. 

Code Ann. tit. 11 § 851.3, a Class G felony punishable by up to 

two years’ imprisonment. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 § 4205(b)(7). 

In view of this conviction, Artis is not entitled to relief 

under Simmons, and we find that the district court did not err 

in denying his pro se motion to dismiss the indictment.

The waiver provision also does not preclude our review 

of Artis’ conviction pursuant to Anders. We have reviewed the 

entire record and have found no issues that are meritorious and 

outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore deny in part the 

Government’s motion to dismiss and affirm Artis’ conviction. 

This court requires that counsel inform Artis, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Artis requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 
5

state that a copy thereof was served on Artis. 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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART