UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4575
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CURTIS DARYLE TINSLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00009-jlk)
Submitted: November 26, 2007 Decided: February 13, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Matthew W. Greene, SMITH & GREENE, P.L.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellant. Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Daryle Tinsley pled guilty to carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) (2000), and distribution of more than fifty grams of
cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to
322 months of imprisonment. Tinsley’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 Tinsley’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary because the
district court conducted the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing jointly,
for Tinsley and two of his co-defendants. Although Tinsley was
informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Tinsley has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the
appeal, asserting that Tinsley validly waived his right to appeal
in his 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. Amaya-Portillo, 423
F.3d 427, 430 (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.
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 we review de novo.
- 2 -
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that Tinsley knowingly
and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because
Tinsley’s valid and enforceable waiver of appellate rights
precludes review of any sentencing issues raised on appeal or
conducted by this court under Anders, we grant, in part, the
Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of Tinsley’s sentence.
Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement
precludes our review of the sentence, Tinsley did not waive his
right to appeal his convictions. Thus, the waiver does not
preclude our review of any error in Tinsley’s convictions raised by
counsel or revealed by our review pursuant to Anders. We have
reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy and find that the
district court fully complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting Tinsley’s guilty plea. With respect to counsel’s
argument that the court erred in conducting a joint Rule 11
proceeding of Tinsley and two of his co-defendants, counsel points
to no authority that such a proceeding is inherently improper or
that it renders a defendant’s guilty plea unknowing or involuntary.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in this particular case that the
collective proceeding violated any of Tinsley’s rights. The court
questioned Tinsley individually in conducting the Rule 11 colloquy
and discussed with him one-on-one the charges against him, his
range of punishment, and his plea agreement. Thus, we deny, in
- 3 -
part, the Government’s motion to dismiss and affirm Tinsley’s
convictions.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not
covered by the waiver. We affirm Tinsley’s convictions and dismiss
the appeal of his sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw
at this juncture. 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
a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may renew his motion at that time.
Counsel’s 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 -