UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES MARSHALL MCLEAN, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00188-JAB-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Carlyle Sherrill, III, SHERRILL & CAMERON, PLLC, Salisbury, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Marshall McLean, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction 

and sentence after pleading guilty. McLean’s attorney first 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), concluding there were no meritorious grounds for appeal 

but raising sentencing issues. McLean was notified of his right 

to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We 

previously ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs 

addressing an additional sentencing issue, and McLean’s attorney 

has done so. The Government now moves to dismiss the appeal, 

contending these sentencing issues are barred by McLean’s waiver 

of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement. McLean’s 

attorney has filed a response in opposition to the motion.

“Plea bargains rest on contractual principles, and each 

party should receive the benefit of its bargain.” United States 

v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “A defendant may waive the right 

to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as the waiver is 

knowing and voluntary.” United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 

522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). “We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo, 

and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue 

appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). 
3

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that McLean knowingly 

and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and 

sentence, and his sentencing claims are within the scope of the 

waiver. Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed 

the record for any potentially meritorious issues that might 

fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none. 

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss 

the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his or her 

client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. If the client 

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 state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 

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