Court Opinion

ID: 9405244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:30.44559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.458291
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709      Doc: 28         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4709

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TYRONE ROSWELL DAVIS, a/k/a Bloody Tye, a/k/a Turtle,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00281-FL-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

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

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John
        Gibbons, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709      Doc: 28         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Tyrone Roswell Davis pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a

        firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court

        sentenced him to 120 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 Davis’ appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary,

        whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and whether there is any evidence of

        prosecutorial misconduct. Davis was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental

        brief, but he has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant

        to the appellate waiver in Davis’ plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appellate 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 quotation 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).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709      Doc: 28          Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

               Our review of the record confirms that Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived his

        right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions. We therefore conclude

        that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Although Davis’ ineffective-assistance claim falls

        outside the scope of the waiver, “we will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial

        record itself that the defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v.

        Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). Because the present

        record does not conclusively show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Davis’

        claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016). Davis’

        prosecutorial-misconduct claim also falls outside the scope of the waiver, but our review

        of the record revealed no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside of Davis’ valid appellate waiver. We

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

        within the scope of the waiver. We otherwise affirm the judgment. This court requires

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

        United States for further review. If Davis 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 Davis.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709         Doc: 28    Filed: 06/26/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

              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