UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-5010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL LENIX CARLISLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:08-cr-00053-BO-1)
Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lenix Carlisle pled guilty to receipt of child
pornography. In his plea agreement, Carlisle agreed
to waive knowingly and expressly all rights . . . to
appeal whatever sentence is imposed, including any
issues that relate to the establishment of the
advisory Guideline range, reserving only the right to
appeal from a sentence in excess of the applicable
advisory Guideline range that is established at
sentencing.
Carlisle was sentenced within his advisory Guideline range to
121 months in prison.
He now appeals. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
contending that Carlisle’s sentence is unreasonable. Carlisle
was advised of his right to file a pro se brief, but did not
file such a brief. The United States moves to dismiss the
appeal based on Carlisle’s appellate waiver. We affirm in part
and dismiss in part.
A defendant may waive his right to appeal if the
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Amaya-
Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the
district court specifically questions the defendant about the
waiver during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 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
2
165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). We review de novo the validity of
an appellate waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168
(4th Cir. 2005).
At his Rule 11 hearing, Carlisle informed the court
that he was sixty years old and had a high school education. He
expressed satisfaction with his lawyer’s services. Carlisle
represented to the court that he had voluntarily entered into
the plea agreement with a full understanding of its provisions.
The court summarized the terms of the agreement, including the
waiver provision. We conclude that Carlisle knowingly and
intelligently waived the right to appeal his sentence, which was
within his advisory Guideline range of 97-121 months. Further,
the issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver.
We therefore grant the motion to dismiss the appeal with respect
to Carlisle’s sentence.
Carlisle’s waiver does not preclude correction of any
errors in his conviction. In this regard, we have reviewed the
entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none.
In particular, we note that Carlisle’s plea was entered with a
full understanding of its consequences, there was a factual
basis for the plea, and the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11. We therefore affirm his conviction.
3
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 move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy of the motion 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