Court Opinion

ID: 9403963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:52.453892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.606720
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4522      Doc: 36         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4522

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        IVAN LARENTA STEWART,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cr-00146-HEH-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Appellate
        Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Nia Ayanna Vidal, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
        OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
        Kenneth Ray Simon, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4522       Doc: 36         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ivan Larenta Stewart pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession

        with intent to distribute eutylone and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(C). The district court varied above the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and

        sentenced Stewart to 160 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On

        appeal, Stewart’s attorney 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

        Stewart’s sentence is reasonable. Stewart filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that he

        received inadequate notice about the court’s consideration of a variance and that the

        Government breached the plea agreement by arguing for a sentence above the Guidelines

        range. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in

        Stewart’s plea agreement. * We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and has not breached the

        plea agreement, we 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). Upon review of the record, including the plea

        agreement and transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Stewart

        knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Further, the Government did not

        breach the plea agreement by arguing for a sentence above the established Guidelines range

               The Government also sought dismissal on the ground that the appeal is untimely.
               *

        We deny the Government’s motion in part because Stewart filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4522         Doc: 36       Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        as no provision in the plea agreement so limited the Government’s ability to argue for an

        appropriate sentence. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part

        and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, including counsel’s

        challenge to Stewart’s sentence and Stewart’s claim that he received inadequate notice of

        a variance.

               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 Stewart’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 Stewart,

        in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

        If Stewart 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 Stewart.

               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