Court Opinion

ID: 9374406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:33.774037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.894065
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4329      Doc: 30         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4329

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DANA DEAN FETHERSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:21-cr-00045-KDB-DCK-1)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                  Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP & GAINES MESSICK, PLLC,
        Statesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney,
        Elizabeth M. Greenough, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4329      Doc: 30          Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Dana Fetherson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of

        a firearm and possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court varied upward from the Sentencing Guidelines

        range and sentenced Fetherson to 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Fetherson argues

        that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to notify the probation officer

        that it would seek a variance at sentencing. He also claims that the court erred by varying

        upward without providing him notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h). Finally, Fetherson

        challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The Government responds that

        the plea agreement did not obligate it to notify the probation officer about a variance and

        otherwise invokes the appeal waiver in Fetherson’s plea agreement. We affirm in part and

        dismiss in part.

               An appeal waiver cannot preclude consideration of a claim that the Government

        breached the plea agreement. United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640, 644 n.4 (4th Cir.

        2009). However, our review of the record discloses no breach of the plea agreement

        because there is no provision requiring the Government to notify the probation officer that

        it would seek a variance at sentencing. Therefore, we affirm as to this claim.

               We review the validity of an appeal 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 the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Fetherson knowingly

        and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss Fetherson’s appeal as

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4329         Doc: 30      Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        to all issues within the waiver’s scope, including Fetherson’s claim that the district court

        was required to notify him in advance of imposing an upward variant sentence and his

        challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

               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