UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERROD CORNELIUS SMITH, a/k/a Jerod Cornelius Smith,
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-00037-BO-1)
Submitted: September 9, 2009 Decided: September 18, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and
Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerrod Cornelius Smith pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
more than fifty grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006). The district court granted his motion for a
downward departure and sentenced him to 144 months of
imprisonment, below the advisory guidelines range of 210 to 262
months.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Counsel questions,
however, whether the district court erred in upholding a six-
level enhancement for assaulting a police officer. Smith was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but
has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal
on the ground that Smith knowingly and intelligently waived his
right to appeal.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal 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,
2
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. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d
162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Smith knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal any
sentence that did not exceed the advisory guidelines range. The
sole sentencing issue he raises on appeal falls within the scope
of this waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss in part and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement
precludes our review of the sentence, the waiver does not
preclude our review of any errors in Smith’s conviction that may
be revealed pursuant to the review required by Anders. In
accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore deny
the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and affirm Smith’s
conviction.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of the 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
3
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