Court Opinion

ID: 9397889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 21:01:34.041928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.554473
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4345      Doc: 37         Filed: 05/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4345

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        LIONEL DANGELO HATCH, JR., a/k/a L,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00044-D-1)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 25, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jamie L. Vavonese, VAVONESE LAW FIRM, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4345       Doc: 37          Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Lionel Dangelo Hatch, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, 500

        grams or more of cocaine, and 28 grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”), in violation of

        21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, and distribution of a quantity of crack, in violation

        of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). As part of the plea agreement, Hatch agreed to waive

        his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. The district court sentenced Hatch to 151

        months’ imprisonment. Hatch timely appealed.

               Counsel for Hatch has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asserting that the district

        court failed to adequately explain Hatch’s within-Guidelines sentence. Although informed

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

        moves to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appellate waiver included in Hatch’s plea

        agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss 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). Generally, if the district court fully questions a

        defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in

        accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the record shows

        that the defendant understood the waiver’s significance, the waiver is both valid and

        enforceable. United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review

        of the record confirms that Hatch knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4345       Doc: 37          Filed: 05/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        We conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the issue counsel raises falls

        squarely within the scope of the waiver.

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

        found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Hatch’s appeal waiver. We

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

        issues within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court

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

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