Court Opinion

ID: 9945987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:00:47.499807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:13.203697
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4056      Doc: 20         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4056

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STEVEN EDWARD DENKENBERGER, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00020-TSK-MJA-2)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                 Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charles T. Berry, Kingmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. William
        Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Brandon S. Flower, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg,
        West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4056       Doc: 20         Filed: 02/27/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Steven Edward Denkenberger, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement,

        to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation

        of 28 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). The district court sentenced him to 210 months’

        imprisonment. On appeal, Denkenberger argues that his sentence is both procedurally and

        substantively unreasonable and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of

        counsel. The Government requests that the court dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal

        waiver in the plea agreement.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). “[W]e will

        enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the

        waiver.” Id. (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); see Boutcher, 998 F.3d at 608.

               Our review of the record confirms that Denkenberger knowingly and intelligently

        waived his right to appeal his sentence. Denkenberger’s challenges to the reasonableness

        of his sentence fall squarely within the scope of his valid and enforceable appeal waiver.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4056      Doc: 20        Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

              Denkenberger’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance falls

        outside of the scope of his appeal waiver. However, we will not consider ineffective

        assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness

        conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502,

        507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Based on our review of the present record, Denkenberger fails to

        meet this standard. We therefore decline to review this claim on direct appeal.

              Accordingly, we dismiss Denkenberger’s challenges to the reasonableness of his

        sentence and affirm the remainder of the criminal judgment. 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