Court Opinion

ID: 9911426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:00:35.612469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:08.654211
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4135      Doc: 24         Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4135

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MICHAEL M. BROWN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:18-cr-00063-GMG-RWT-1)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 18, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Andrew R.
        Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4135       Doc: 24         Filed: 12/18/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael M. Brown pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy

        to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, and aggravated identity

        theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The district court sentenced Brown to a total term

        of 75 months’ imprisonment. Brown’s 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 Brown’s sentence is reasonable. Although notified of his right to

        do so, Brown has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to

        dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Brown’s plea agreement. We affirm

        in part and dismiss in part.

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

        enforceable.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). “[W]e will

        enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the

        waiver.” Id. (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. “Generally though, if a district court

        questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.]

        11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of

        the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018)

        (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Our review of the record confirms that Brown knowingly and intelligently waived

        his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4135      Doc: 24          Filed: 12/18/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the issue Brown

        raises falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no potentially meritorious grounds outside the scope of Brown’s appellate waiver.

        We therefore grant the Government’s motion 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 Brown, in writing, of the right to petition the

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