Court Opinion

ID: 9405254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:39.770553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.405388
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4648      Doc: 38         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4648

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KEVIN RICHARD HEIDEL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00191-WO-1)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Elizabeth Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellant. K. P. Kennedy Gates, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4648      Doc: 38          Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Kevin Richard Heidel pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent minor or a minor under the age

        of 12, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). The district court sentenced

        Heidel to 240 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Heidel’s counsel 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 Heidel’s guilty plea is valid and whether

        Heidel’s sentence is reasonable.     Heidel was informed of his right to file a pro se

        supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the

        appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Heidel’s plea agreement. We affirm in part,

        dismiss in part, and remand for correction of the amended judgment.

               “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). Upon review of the record, including the plea

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

        knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.

        Accordingly, we grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal

        as to all issues within the scope of the appellate waiver, including the sentencing issue

        raised in the Anders brief.

               Although Heidel’s appellate waiver covers his right to appeal his conviction, it does

        not preclude our review of counsel’s challenge to the validity of Heidel’s guilty plea. See

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4648      Doc: 38          Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d

        727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to

        dismiss. Because Heidel did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy

        of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error only. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622

        (4th Cir. 2016). And we conclude that the district court did not err, let alone plainly so, in

        accepting Heidel’s guilty plea. Indeed, the district court fully complied with Rule 11 and

        properly found that Heidel’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an

        independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th

        Cir. 1991). We are thus satisfied that Heidel’s guilty plea is valid.

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

        found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal that are outside of the appellate waiver

        or not waivable by law. We therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss

        and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the appellate waiver. We also deny in

        part the motion to dismiss and affirm as to any issue not precluded by the appellate waiver.

               Finally, we remand to the district court with instructions to correct the amended

        judgment’s “Schedule of Payments.” The district court stated at the sentencing hearing

        that a payment of $6600 in restitution and special assessments was due immediately, but if

        Heidel failed to satisfy that obligation while incarcerated, he would have to pay any balance

        in $50 monthly installments beginning 60 days after his release from prison. The amended

        judgment provides, however, that Heidel must pay $100 monthly installments. We thus

        remand to the district court for correction of the amended judgment to conform with the

        district court’s oral pronouncement that Heidel must make $50 monthly payments

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4648         Doc: 38       Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        beginning 60 days after his release from prison. See United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d 27,

        29 n.1 (4th Cir. 1965).

               This court requires that counsel inform Heidel, in writing, of the right to petition the

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

               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,
                                                                                   AND REMANDED

                                                      4