Court Opinion

ID: 9365729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 21:00:18.938592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.398134
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4334      Doc: 26         Filed: 01/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4334

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RICHARD OMAR MCCORMICK,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00100-BO-2)

        Submitted: January 11, 2023                                       Decided: January 23, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
        Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L.
        Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4334      Doc: 26          Filed: 01/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Omar McCormick pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy

        to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base

        and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession with the intent

        to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court

        sentenced McCormick to 135 months’ imprisonment and imposed five- and three-year

        terms of supervised release with certain conditions.           We affirmed McCormick’s

        convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district

        court included discretionary conditions of supervised release in its written judgment that it

        had not announced at the sentencing hearing. United States v. McCormick, No. 19-4722,

        2021 WL 4947143, at *2 (4th Cir. Oct. 25, 2021) (argued but unpublished) (citing United

        States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021), and United States v. Rogers,

        961 F.3d 291, 297-98 (4th Cir. 2020)).

               On remand, the district court reimposed the 135-month sentence and the five- and

        three-year terms of supervised release with certain conditions, all of which were announced

        at the resentencing hearing. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

        California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning whether the district court procedurally erred by not specifically addressing

        McCormick’s arguments for a lower sentence. McCormick was informed of his right to

        file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss

        the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in McCormick’s plea agreement. We affirm in

        part and dismiss in part.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4334      Doc: 26         Filed: 01/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               “We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo.” United States v. Soloff,

        993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). “Where the Government seeks to enforce an appeal

        waiver and the defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce a

        valid appeal waiver where the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”

        United States v. McGrath, 981 F.3d 248, 250 (4th Cir. 2020). “A waiver is valid if the

        defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.” Soloff,

        993 F.3d at 243 (internal quotation marks omitted). “To determine whether a waiver is

        knowing and intelligent, we examine the totality of the circumstances, including the

        experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s educational background

        and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. Thornsbury,

        670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally though,

        if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the

        Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full

        significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358,

        362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record confirms that McCormick knowingly and voluntarily

        waived his right to appeal, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore

        conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the issue counsel raises falls

        squarely within the scope of the waiver.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of McCormick’s valid appellate

        waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4334         Doc: 26     Filed: 01/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        appeal as to all issues within the scope of the waiver. We otherwise affirm. This court

        requires that counsel inform McCormick, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

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

              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 the

        decisional process.

                                                                             AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                             DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4