Court Opinion

ID: 9902067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:34.063679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.268172
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4115      Doc: 37         Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4115

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        BENJAMINE MOSS, JR., a/k/a BJ,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00088-D-1)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Howard W. Anderson III, TRULUCK THOMASON LLC, Greenville, South
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4115      Doc: 37         Filed: 11/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Benjamine Moss, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction and the 246-month sentence

        imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

        distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, a quantity of marijuana, and 40 grams or more of

        fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846; distribution of a mixture

        and substance containing heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(C); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Moss’ 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 Moss’ sentence is reasonable.         Moss did not file a pro se

        supplemental brief after being notified of his right to do so. The Government has moved

        to dismiss the appeal as barred by Moss’ waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea

        agreement.

               Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and Moss has

        not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the

        issue raised on appeal falls within its scope. United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608

        (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Moss knowingly

        and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

        Moss’ challenge to his sentence falls squarely within the waiver’s scope, and we have

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

        meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4115      Doc: 37        Filed: 11/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        the Government’s motion to dismiss Moss’ appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s

        scope. We affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

              This court requires that counsel inform Moss, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

                                                                              DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                              AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                    3