Court Opinion

ID: 9390994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:23.813163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.720361
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4550      Doc: 37         Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4550

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        HARRY JAMES BELLAMY, II, a/k/a Little,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00718-SAL-3)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                          Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina; Kathleen Michelle
        Stoughton, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4550      Doc: 37         Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Harry James Bellamy, II, seeks to appeal his conviction and the 151-month sentence

        imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

        distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(A), 846. Bellamy’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

        U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning

        whether the district court abused its discretion by overruling Bellamy’s objections to the

        presentence report when calculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Bellamy

        did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his right to do so. The

        Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Bellamy’s waiver of the right to

        appeal included in the plea agreement.

               Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and Bellamy has

        not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the

        issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Boutcher, 998

        F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that

        Bellamy knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that the waiver is valid

        and enforceable. Bellamy’s challenges to his sentence fall squarely within the waiver’s

        scope, and we have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no

        potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly,

        we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Bellamy’s appeal as to all issues within the

        waiver’s scope and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4550      Doc: 37         Filed: 04/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

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

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

                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                               AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                     3