Court Opinion

ID: 9364996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:29.748009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.926696
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4289      Doc: 30         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4289

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DEZMOND COHEN, a/k/a Dezmund Trevon Cohen, a/k/a Dezmond Trevon Cohen, a/k/a
        Dezmund Trevor Cohen,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00689-TMC-2)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

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

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Amy K. Raffaldt, LAW OFFICE OF AMY K. RAFFALDT, ESQ., Myrtle
        Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4289      Doc: 30         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Dezmond Cohen pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a mixture of drugs, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), (b)(2), 846, and possession of firearms in

        furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The

        district court sentenced Cohen to 237 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 issues for appeal but questioning the district court’s calculation of the

        Sentencing Guidelines range and the reasonableness of Cohen’s sentence. Although

        advised of his right to do so, Cohen has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The

        Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Cohen’s

        plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo, and “we will enforce a valid

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

        States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A

        waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to

        appeal.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To determine whether a waiver is knowing

        and intelligent, “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 quotation marks omitted). Generally, “if a district court questions a defendant

        regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4289         Doc: 30      Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is

        valid.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record confirms that Cohen knowingly and intelligently waived

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

        Further, Cohen’s challenges to the district court’s calculation of the Guidelines range and

        the reasonableness of his sentence fall squarely within the waiver’s scope. We therefore

        conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable.

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

        found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Cohen’s valid appeal waiver.

        We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as

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

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

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

               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