Court Opinion

ID: 9395929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 21:00:26.75366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.795045
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4638      Doc: 20         Filed: 05/17/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4638

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        SAMUEL ARNETT, JR., a/k/a Samuel Arnette, Jr.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00141-D-1)

        Submitted: May 10, 2023                                           Decided: May 17, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4638       Doc: 20         Filed: 05/17/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Samuel Arnett, Jr., seeks to appeal his below-Guidelines range sentence after

        pleading guilty to three drug and firearm offenses. On appeal, Arnett’s attorney has filed

        a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two sentencing issues

        but concluding there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. The Government has moved

        to dismiss the appeal as barred by Arnett’s appeal waiver. Arnett was notified of his right

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

               “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and has not breached the

        plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

        within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A ‘valid’ appeal waiver is one entered by the

        defendant knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. “When a district court questions a defendant during a

        Rule 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant

        understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid.”

        Id. We review this issue de novo. Id.

               Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Arnett knowingly and voluntarily

        waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and the issues raised on appeal fall

        within the scope of the waiver. Moreover, we have reviewed the record for any potentially

        meritorious issues that might fall outside the waiver and have found none.

               Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This court

        requires that counsel inform Arnett, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4638      Doc: 20        Filed: 05/17/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        of the United States for further review. If Arnett 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 Arnett. 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.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    3