Court Opinion

ID: 9381119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:00:59.839849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.144392
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4491      Doc: 31         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4491

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        COREY MICHAEL PERKINS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00056-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Charles T. Berry, Kingmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Courtney L.
        Cremeans, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4491      Doc: 31         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Corey Michael Perkins pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to lying in

        acquisition of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(a)(1)(A). The district court

        sentenced Perkins to 37 months’ imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.

        On appeal, Perkins’ 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 the

        validity of Perkins’ guilty plea, the reasonableness of Perkins’ sentence, and whether

        Perkins’ trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not seeking a more favorable plea

        agreement and failing to object to Perkins’ sentence. Although notified of his right to do

        so, Perkins has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to

        dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Perkins’ plea agreement. We affirm in

        part and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appellate 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). Upon review of the record, including the plea

        agreement and transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Perkins

        knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that his challenge to his sentence

        falls squarely within the scope of the appeal waiver.         Accordingly, we grant the

        Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the

        waiver’s scope. The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our review of the

        validity of the guilty plea, and the waiver excepted claims of ineffective assistance of

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4491       Doc: 31         Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        counsel. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). We therefore

        deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss.

               Because Perkins did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy

        of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th

        Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing plain

        error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Perkins entered his

        guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the plea. See

        United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Discerning no plain

        error, we conclude that Perkins’ guilty plea is valid.

               Although Perkins’ ineffective assistance claims fall outside the scope of the appeal

        waiver, “we will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial record itself that the

        defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th

        320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). Because the present record does not

        conclusively show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Perkins’ claims are

        not cognizable on direct appeal and “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

        motion.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Perkins’ valid appeal waiver.

        We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope and affirm the

        remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Perkins,

        in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

        If Perkins requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4491         Doc: 31     Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 4 of 4

        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 Perkins.

              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