UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLAYTON ATKINSON, a/k/a Howard Clark,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00070-BO-1)

Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research 

& Writing Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Clayton Atkinson appeals his convictions for 

conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and to transport stolen 

funds and goods in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 2, 1341 (2006), and his 150-month sentence. Atkinson’s

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 Atkinson’s sentence is 

procedurally reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss 

the appeal of the sentence as barred by Atkinson’s waiver of the 

right to appeal included in the written plea agreement. We 

affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript 

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Atkinson 

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his 

sentence and that the sentencing issue he seeks to raise on 

appeal falls squarely within the scope of his waiver of 

appellate rights. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion 

to dismiss in part and dismiss the challenge to Atkinson’s 

sentence. 

Because Atkinson did not waive his right to appeal his 

convictions, we deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss. 

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Atkinson knowingly 
3

and voluntarily entered valid guilty pleas and that the pleas 

were supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United 

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record 

for non-waivable meritorious issues and have found none. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to 

Atkinson’s convictions. 

This court requires that counsel inform Atkinson, in 

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

United States for further review. If Atkinson 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 Atkinson. 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