Court Opinion

ID: 9911425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:34.490488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:56.392942
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4275      Doc: 38         Filed: 12/18/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4275

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MICHEAL GERONALD PRINCE, a/k/a Ron Lo, a/k/a Ron Low,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00986-TLW-6)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4275      Doc: 38          Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Micheal Geronald Prince pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute various controlled substances, including—

        as attributable to him through his own conduct and the conduct of other conspirators

        reasonably foreseeable to him—five kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more

        of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court

        sentenced him to 216 months’ imprisonment. 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 properly calculated Prince’s criminal

        history score. Prince was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he

        has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss Prince’s appeal pursuant to the

        appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “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). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant

        enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, 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.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4275       Doc: 38         Filed: 12/18/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, confirms that Prince knowingly and intelligently waived

        his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here.

        We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issue

        counsel raises falls squarely within the waiver’s scope.

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

        found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Prince’s valid

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

        dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and

        otherwise affirm.

               This court requires that counsel inform Prince, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Prince 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 Prince. 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

                                                      3