Court Opinion

ID: 9895010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 21:00:35.116681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:09.331880
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4015      Doc: 34         Filed: 11/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4015

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRODERICK DEMON SULLIVAN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00084-WO-3)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 2, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Kyle David 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4015      Doc: 34          Filed: 11/02/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Broderick Demon Sullivan pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to two

        counts of distributing a quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount

        of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and one count of

        distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(A). As part of the plea agreement, Sullivan agreed to waive his right to appeal his

        conviction and sentence, preserving only challenges to a sentence exceeding the statutory

        maximum or based on an unconstitutional factor or if the Government appealed the

        sentence. The district court sentenced Sullivan to concurrent terms of 144 months’

        imprisonment, a downward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

        Sullivan timely appealed.

               Counsel for Sullivan has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

        (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Sullivan has filed a pro se

        supplemental brief challenging his sentence in light of the disparity in how the Guidelines

        treat methamphetamine based on purity level. The Government has moved to dismiss the

        appeal as to any claims within the scope of the appellate waiver included in Sullivan’s plea

        agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if

        it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Adams,

        814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). Generally, if the district court fully questions a

        defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in

        accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the record shows

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4015         Doc: 34      Filed: 11/02/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        that the defendant understood the waiver’s significance, the waiver is both valid and

        enforceable. United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review

        of the record confirms that Sullivan knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.

        We conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the issue Sullivan 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 issues outside the scope of Sullivan’s appeal 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 judgment. This court requires that counsel

        inform Sullivan, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States

        for further review. If Sullivan 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 Sullivan. 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