Court Opinion

ID: 9930434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:13.544169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:37.993297
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4404      Doc: 34         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4404

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DEONTE FATRELL MCCOY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:21-cr-00095-D-3)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Daniel M. Blau, DANIEL M. BLAU, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4404      Doc: 34         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                Deonte Fatrell McCoy pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl,

        in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846. The district court sentenced him to 162

        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 erred in denying McCoy a three-level offense

        level reduction for acceptance of responsibility when calculating his advisory Sentencing

        Guidelines range. In a pro se supplemental brief, McCoy raises other challenges to the

        district court’s Guidelines calculation. The Government moves to dismiss McCoy’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[s] being appealed

        fall[] 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: 23-4404       Doc: 34        Filed: 02/05/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, confirms that McCoy 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

        issues raised by Anders counsel and McCoy fall 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 McCoy’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 McCoy, in writing, of the right to petition

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