Court Opinion

ID: 9363376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-16 00:00:38.04696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.629618
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4241      Doc: 34         Filed: 01/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4241

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        NICHOLAS ANTONIO BROWN, a/k/a Gay Nick,

                             Defendant - Appellant,

                                               No. 22-4245

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        NICHOLAS ANTONIO BROWN, a/k/a Gay Nick,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cr-00322-M-1; 5:21-cr-00115-
        M-5)

        Submitted: December 30, 2022                                   Decided: January 13, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4241      Doc: 34         Filed: 01/13/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4241      Doc: 34          Filed: 01/13/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Nicholas Antonio Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with

        intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 28 grams or more of cocaine

        base, and quantities of cocaine and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 in case No.

        5:21-cr-00115-M-5 (“the conspiracy case”). In case No. 5:21-cr-00322-M-1, Brown pled

        guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to maintaining a premises for the purpose of

        manufacturing, distributing, and using cocaine base, cocaine, and methamphetamine, in

        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (“the premises case”). The district court granted the

        Government’s motion for a downward departure below the statutory minimum applicable

        in the conspiracy case and sentenced Brown to concurrent prison terms of 48 months.

        Brown appeals from the criminal judgments entered in both cases. Brown’s counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no

        meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as issues for review whether the 48-month terms

        are procedurally and substantively reasonable and whether the district court reversibly

        erred in accepting Brown’s guilty pleas. Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se

        supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Invoking the appeal waiver in Brown’s plea

        agreement, the Government moves to dismiss these appeals.              Brown’s counsel has

        responded. For the reasons that follow, we grant the Government’s motions to dismiss.

               Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights. United

        States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014). Where, as here, the Government seeks

        enforcement of an appeal waiver and there is no claim that it breached its obligations under

        the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver to preclude an appeal of a specific issue if

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4241       Doc: 34         Filed: 01/13/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        the waiver is valid and the issue falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick,

        408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal

        is a question of law we review de novo. Id.

                 The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the defendant knowingly and

        voluntarily waived his right to appeal. United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir.

        2018).     To determine whether a waiver is valid, we examine “the totality of the

        circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant, his educational

        background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.” Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “Generally . . . 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

        both valid and enforceable. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

                 We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Brown knowingly and

        voluntarily waived his rights to appeal. In the plea agreement, Brown waived the rights to

        appeal his conviction and “whatever sentence is imposed on any ground.” Brown also

        agreed that this waiver applied in the premises case and in the conspiracy case. The

        challenges to Brown’s convictions and sentences counsel raises for review fall squarely

        within the scope of Brown’s valid waiver of appellate rights. We also have examined the

        entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious

        issues for appeal falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the

        Government’s motions to dismiss.

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4241      Doc: 34          Filed: 01/13/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

               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 in the decisional process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

                                                      5