Court Opinion

ID: 1001437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:55:36.808048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:02.679831
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                    No. 99-4520
CARLTON WILSON, a/k/a Omar
Wilson,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                  No. 99-4646

JEFFREY MATTHIAS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.
(CR-98-30)

Submitted: March 14, 2000

Decided: April 25, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

No. 99-4520 dismissed and No. 99-4646 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

David J. Damico, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. DAMICO, Roa-
noke, Virginia; Melissa W. Friedman, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appel-
lants. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P.
Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carlton Wilson and Jeffrey Matthias1 were convicted pursuant to
their guilty pleas of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. On appeal,
Wilson alleges that the district court erred by enhancing his base
offense level for obstruction of justice pursuant to USSG § 3C1.12 and
by denying his request for a downward departure based on "super
acceptance of responsibility." Matthias alleges that he should have
been sentenced under the "safety valve" provision found in 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(f) (West Supp. 1999) and USSG§ 5C1.2.3 Because
we find that Wilson waived his claims in his plea agreement, we dis-
miss his appeal. Finding no error as to Matthias, we affirm his sen-
tence.

The basic facts of this case are undisputed. Police in Roanoke, Vir-
_________________________________________________________________
1 Matthias claims that his true name is "Clinton Ashley." We will con-
tinue to use the name "Matthias" so as to be consistent with court
records.
2 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998).
3 The "safety valve" allows a sentencing court to impose a sentence in
accordance with the applicable Guidelines range, regardless of any statu-
tory minimum sentence, if the defendant satisfies five criteria.

                    2
ginia, received information from an informant that Wilson was going
to deliver a large amount of crack cocaine. The officers conducted
surveillance and stopped Wilson's vehicle near the delivery site. Mat-
thias was in the front passenger seat of the vehicle and was found to
be in possession of approximately 165.67 grams of crack cocaine.

Wilson's plea agreement contained a provision expressly waiving
the right to appeal any issues related to the application of the Sentenc-
ing Guidelines. A waiver of a criminal defendant's right to appeal
contained in a valid plea agreement "is enforceable against the defen-
dant so long as it is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision
to forgo the right to appeal." United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731
(4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation and citations omitted). The record
shows that the district court expressly addressed the waiver provision
during the plea colloquy and that Wilson understood the provision
and agreed to it. We therefore find that Wilson knowingly and volun-
tarily waived the issues raised here, and we dismiss his appeal.

At the time of Matthias' plea agreement, the Government stipulated
that he qualified for sentencing under the safety valve. However, this
was before it was discovered that Matthias had repeatedly provided
false information concerning his identity. As a result of Matthias'
falsehoods, the district court properly enhanced his base offense level
for obstruction of justice.

The purpose of the safety valve is to allow a sentencing court to
ignore the statutory minimum sentence if the bottom of the Guidelines
range is lower. In the present case, the enhancement for obstruction
put Matthias' sentencing range above the statutory minimum. There-
fore, by definition, the safety valve did not apply. As a result, we find
that the district court properly declined to sentence Matthias under the
safety valve, and the Government did not breach the terms of the plea
agreement by not making what would have been a frivolous argument
in favor of the safety valve.

Accordingly, we dismiss Wilson's appeal. Matthias' sentence is
affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court,
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

No. 99-4520 -- DISMISSED
No. 99-4646 -- AFFIRMED

                     3