Court Opinion

ID: 9396886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:38.560037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.129004
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4543      Doc: 28         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4543

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRADLEY DEVON BROWN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cr-00184-CCE-1)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Charles L. White, Assistant Federal
        Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Veronica Lynn Edmisten, Angela Hewlett Miller, Margaret
        McCall Reece, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4543      Doc: 28          Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Bradley Devon Brown pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to 10

        counts of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The district court sentenced Brown to 276 months’ imprisonment

        followed by three years’ supervised release, and he now appeals. On appeal, Brown’s

        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 sentence imposed

        is reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Brown has not filed a pro se

        supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss Brown’s appeal based on the

        appeal waiver contained in Brown’s plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

               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.” United States v. Adams,

        814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is “knowing and voluntary.” Id.

        To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, we “consider the totality of the

        circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant, his educational

        background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.” United States v.

        McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations marks omitted). Generally,

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

        [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the

        full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

        Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude

        that Brown knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that the issue raised

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4543         Doc: 28      Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        in the Anders brief falls squarely within the compass of the appellate waiver. Accordingly,

        we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss with respect to all issues falling within the

        scope of the waiver.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the remainder of the district

        court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right

        to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown 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 Brown.

               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 IN PART,
                                                                               AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                     3