Court Opinion

ID: 9389403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:10.83695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.077275
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4269      Doc: 29         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4269

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CURTIS MARCEL BARNETTE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00434-TDS-1)

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

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J.
        Hairston, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4269       Doc: 29         Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Curtis Marcel Barnette appeals the aggregate 240-month sentence imposed

        following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm

        by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and transporting a

        stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. On appeal,

        Barnette argues that the district court erred in computing his criminal history score and in

        declining to award an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. Barnette also asserts an

        unspecified challenge related to his pre-plea suppression motion, which was not ruled on

        by the district court. In its response brief, the Government moves to dismiss this appeal as

        barred by the broad appellate waiver included in Barnette’s plea agreement and because

        Barnette did not enter a conditional guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Barnette

        declined the opportunity to oppose dismissal.

               “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). “We review the validity of an appellate waiver

        de novo.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021) (emphasis omitted).

        “A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to

        appeal.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “When a district court questions a

        defendant during a [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record

        shows that the defendant understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold

        that the waiver is valid.” Boutcher, 998 F.3d at 608.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4269      Doc: 29          Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               Barnette does not assert on appeal that the appellate waiver was not knowing or

        intelligent or that his agreement to the waiver was involuntary. Our review of the plea

        hearing transcript confirms that Barnette was competent to plead guilty and that he

        understood the terms of the plea agreement, including the appellate waiver. Therefore, the

        waiver is valid and enforceable. Moreover, Barnette’s challenges to the computation of

        his criminal history score and adjusted offense level fall within the scope of the waiver,

        which precluded an appeal of Barnette’s sentence on any grounds, save for three exceptions

        inapplicable here. Finally, we observe that Barnette’s attempt to preserve any issue related

        to his pre-plea motion to suppress fails because Barnette did not enter a conditional guilty

        plea. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (“When a criminal defendant has

        solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is

        charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of

        constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”); United States v.

        Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 314 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Absent a valid conditional guilty plea, we

        will dismiss a defendant’s appeal from an adverse pretrial ruling on a non-jurisdictional

        issue.” (cleaned up)).

               Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 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

                                                      3