Court Opinion

ID: 9389401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:08.878287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.895895
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4612      Doc: 27         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4612

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DISHANNON MATTHEW LUTHER WORKMAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (6:22-cr-00355-BHH-1)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Christopher
        Braden Schoen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4612      Doc: 27         Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Dishannon Matthew Luther Workman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea

        agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e). The district court sentenced Workman to 96 months’

        imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Workman’s 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 whether the district court imposed a

        procedurally unreasonable sentence by failing to consider Workman’s mitigation

        arguments relating to his mental health. Workman has filed a pro se supplemental brief

        asserting the same claim and that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue for a

        downward departure based on diminished capacity. The Government has moved to dismiss

        the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Workman’s 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 Workman

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

        procedural reasonableness of 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, excepted

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4612        Doc: 27        Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We therefore deny in part the Government’s

        motion to dismiss.

               Although Workman’s ineffective assistance claim falls 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, Workman’s claim is

        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 Workman’s 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 Workman, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States

        for further review. If Workman 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 Workman.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4612         Doc: 27    Filed: 04/24/2023   Pg: 4 of 4

              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