UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5033
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CALVIN LAMONT HARRIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00425-RLW)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2007
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
James M. Nachman, NACHMAN & SQUIRES, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Lamont Harris appeals his conviction and the
151-month career offender sentence he received after he pled guilty
to distributing a quantity of cocaine base (crack). 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a) (2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2005).
Harris’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), explaining that, in his view,
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Harris has filed a pro
se supplemental brief, suggesting that the court erred by
increasing his sentence based on prior convictions not charged in
the indictment. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal,
asserting that Harris validly waived his right to appeal his
sentence in the plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in
part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver
is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,
169 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully
questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal
during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 461 (2005); United States v.
Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of
whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a
question of law that this court reviews de novo. Blick, 408 F.3d
- 2 -
at 168. Our review of the record discloses that Harris knowingly
and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. Moreover,
the issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver.
We therefore grant the government’s motion to dismiss, in part, and
dismiss Harris’ appeal of his sentence.
Although Harris also waived his right to appeal his
conviction in the plea agreement, the district court did not
address this aspect of the waiver of appellate rights during the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy. Therefore, the waiver does not
preclude our review of the record pursuant to Anders for potential
error relating to the conviction. Our review of the transcript of
the plea colloquy reveals that the district court fully complied
with Rule 11 in accepting Harris’ guilty plea. Therefore, we deny,
in part, the government’s motion to dismiss, and affirm the
conviction.
Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record,
and Harris’ pro se supplemental brief, and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and
dismiss the appeal of the sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that such 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
- 3 -
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 4 -