UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4222
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT EUGENE HARDY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00010-LHT-1)
Submitted: November 6, 2009 Decided: November 19, 2009
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reita P. Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Eugene Hardy, Jr., appeals from his 168-month
sentence, entered pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. On appeal, he
asserts that the district court erred in failing to provide
individualized reasoning for the chosen sentence, as required by
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009). The
Government has raised Hardy’s appellate waiver contained in his
plea agreement. Finding that Hardy has waived consideration of
the claim on appeal, we dismiss.
A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the
right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). See United
States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). We review
the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will uphold a
waiver of appellate rights if the waiver is valid and the issue
being appealed is covered by the waiver. See United States v.
Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). An appellate waiver
is generally considered to be knowing and voluntary if the
district court specifically questioned the defendant concerning
the waiver provision during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record
indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of
the waiver and was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).
2
During Hardy’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, the
district court specifically questioned Hardy about the appellate
waiver and, after doing so, found that Hardy voluntarily and
intelligently entered his plea. The record reveals nothing to
suggest that the district court’s finding was erroneous, and
Hardy raises no claim to the contrary. Accordingly, the
appellate waiver contained in Hardy’s plea agreement is valid
and enforceable. Moreover, Hardy’s sole contention on appeal--
that the district court erred in failing to properly explain the
basis for his sentence--is foreclosed by his appellate waiver.
Accordingly, we dismiss the 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