Court Opinion

ID: 9375088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:57.85733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.847674
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4422      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4422

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DAVID RICARDO FURLOW,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00015-FL-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Peter M. Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4422       Doc: 35           Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               David Ricardo Furlow appeals his convictions and the 106-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty plea to distribution of a quantity of cocaine and a quantity of cocaine

        base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm in

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

        appeal, Furlow’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

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

        validity of Furlow’s guilty plea and appeal waiver, as well as the district court’s application

        of the Sentencing Guidelines. * Although notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se

        brief, Furlow has not done so. The Government now moves to dismiss the appeal as barred

        by the appeal waiver included in Furlow’s plea agreement. For the reasons that follow, we

        affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Thornsbury,

        670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant from

        appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue

        being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217,

        221 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver

        “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.

               *
                  Anders counsel also questions whether Furlow has a claim for ineffective
        assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Absent exceptional circumstances not
        present here, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate vehicle for asserting an
        ineffective assistance claim. See United States v. Ojedokun, 16 F.4th 1091, 1115 (4th Cir.
        2021). Furthermore, the present record reveals no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4422      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        2010). “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.” Thornsbury,

        670 F.3d at 537.

               Our review of the record confirms that Furlow knowingly and intelligently executed

        the appeal waiver, the terms of which preclude Furlow from appealing whatever sentence

        the district court imposed. Thus, we conclude that the waiver bars Furlow’s Guidelines

        challenge.

               However, Furlow’s appeal waiver does not preclude him from raising a colorable

        challenge to the validity of his guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364

        (4th Cir. 2018); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). Before

        accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a colloquy in which it informs the

        defendant of, and determines that he understands, the nature of the charges to which he is

        pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum penalty he faces, and the

        rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v.

        DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court also must ensure that the

        defendant’s plea is voluntary and supported by an independent factual basis. Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Furlow did not preserve any error in the plea proceedings, we

        review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.

        55, 58-59 (2002); see Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013) (describing

        standard). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Furlow’s guilty plea was

        knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4422         Doc: 35        Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to

        dismiss in part, dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and affirm the

        remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Furlow, in writing, of

        the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Furlow

        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 Furlow.

               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