Court Opinion

ID: 9831308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:28.670006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:22.182278
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4003      Doc: 33         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4003

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KENDALE TYRONE STRANGE, a/k/a Ghost,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00217-FL-4)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James M. Ayers II, AYERS & HAIDT, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4003       Doc: 33           Filed: 08/31/2023   Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kendale Tyrone Strange pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Strange to 86

        months’ imprisonment and he now appeals. Strange’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

        Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues

        for appeal but questioning whether Strange’s sentence is reasonable. Strange has filed a

        supplemental pro se brief raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective

        assistance of counsel. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the

        waiver of appellate rights in Strange’s plea agreement. For the following reasons, we

        affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Cohen, 888

        F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018). We will generally enforce a waiver if it is valid and the

        issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Dillard, 891

        F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). A defendant’s waiver of appellate rights is valid if he entered

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

        2010). After review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

        hearing, we conclude that Strange knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and waived

        his right to appeal, with limited exceptions, and that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

        Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Strange’s appeal as to all issues

        within the waiver’s scope.

               With respect to the arguments raised in Strange’s pro se brief, although ineffective

        assistance of counsel claims fall outside the scope of the waiver, “we will reverse only if it

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4003      Doc: 33          Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        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, Strange’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). Strange’s prosecutorial misconduct claim similarly falls

        outside the scope of the waiver, but our review of the record revealed no evidence of

        prosecutorial misconduct.

               We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no

        potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of Strange’s valid appellate

        waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Strange’s appeal in

        part, 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 Strange, in writing, of the right to petition

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Strange 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 Strange. 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