Court Opinion

ID: 9881763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:35.791845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:59.614708
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4273      Doc: 45         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4273

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RANDY DEAN MCKINLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00059-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer
        Therese Conklin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West
        Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4273      Doc: 45         Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Randy McKinley pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of

        child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). The district court

        sentenced McKinley to 168 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

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

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether McKinley’s sentence is

        reasonable. In his pro se supplemental brief, McKinley argues that his plea was not

        knowing and voluntary, that the district court erred in its calculation of the Sentencing

        Guidelines range, that his sentence is unreasonable, and that his counsel provided

        ineffective assistance. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal as barred by the

        appeal waiver in the plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               The appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not preclude our review pursuant to

        Anders of the validity of the guilty plea. 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

        McKinley did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Fed. R.

        Crim. P. 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 confirms that McKinley entered his guilty plea

        knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported the plea, and that his guilty plea

        is valid. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4273         Doc: 45         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

                  “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

        within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant

        enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. Typically, “if a district court questions a defendant

        regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record

        indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is

        valid.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Boutcher, 998 F.3d

        at 608.

                  Our review of the record confirms that McKinley knowingly, voluntarily, and

        intelligently waived his right to appeal his sentence and that the appeal waiver in the plea

        agreement is valid and enforceable. Because the sentencing issues McKinley and counsel

        raise on appeal fall squarely within the scope of the valid appellate waiver, the waiver bars

        review of those claims.

                  McKinley’s claims that his district court counsel provided ineffective assistance fall

        outside of the scope of his appeal waiver. However, we do not consider ineffective

        assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness

        conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507

        (4th Cir. 2016). Because the present record does not conclusively establish that counsel

        provided ineffective assistance, we decline to address these claims on direct appeal.

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4273      Doc: 45         Filed: 10/02/2023       Pg: 4 of 4

        McKinley’s arguments should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United

        States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).

               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 McKinley’s valid appeal

        waiver. We therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the

        appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the criminal

        judgment. This court requires that counsel inform McKinley, in writing, of the right to

        petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McKinley 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 McKinley. 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