UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GREGORY JOHN MITCHEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:05-cr-00090-SGW)
Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: April 30, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Gregory Phillips, PHILLIPS & PHILLIPS, Salem, Virginia, for
Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Joseph W.H.
Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Bonnie
L. Kane, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory John Mitchel pled guilty to one count of
production of child pornography in interstate commerce in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (2000), and one count each of
transportation, sale, and possession of child pornography, all in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a) (2000). On appeal, Mitchel
claims the district court violated his plea agreement by correcting
an error in the calculation of his guidelines range and sentencing
him to a sentence higher than the one anticipated by his plea
agreement. The Government asserts the appeal should be dismissed
because Mitchel knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to
appeal his sentence. Because we find the appeal waiver is valid
and that the issue raised by Mitchel is within the scope of the
waiver, we dismiss the appeal.
Mitchel’s plea agreement contained an appellate waiver
that stated he knowingly waived the right to appeal “any sentence
within the advisory guidelines range of punishment calculated by
the district court.” The record reveals, and Mitchel does not
contest, that Mitchel agreed to this waiver knowingly and
voluntarily. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th
Cir. 2005). Moreover, Mitchel does not dispute that the sentence
he received was within a properly calculated guidelines range,
thereby falling within the purview of his appellate waiver. See
id. at 169-70.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we dismiss Mitchel’s appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
- 3 -