UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4992
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DEONTAYE DERRICK HARVEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00578-CCB-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas J. Saunders, LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. SAUNDERS, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deontaye Harvey pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)
(2006), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). Harvey was sentenced to
seventy-eight months in prison for the conspiracy and
eighty-four months, consecutive, for the firearm offense. He
now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising three issues
but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Harvey was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not file such a brief.
The United States moves to dismiss the appeal in part
based on Harvey’s waiver in his plea agreement of his right to
appeal his convictions and any sentence determined using a base
offense level of 27 or lower, plus the statutorily required
seven years consecutive for the firearm offense. Upon review of
the record, including the plea agreement, the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding, the presentence investigation
report, and the sentencing transcript, we conclude that Harvey’s
waiver was knowing and voluntary. We further find that the
issues Harvey seeks to raise on appeal—whether the sentence is
reasonable and whether he was denied his right to allocution—
2
fall within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, with respect
to these waivabale issues, we grant the motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
for meritorious nonwaivable issues, see United States v.
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005), and have found none.
We therefore affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court
requires that counsel inform Harvey, in writing, of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United State for further
review. If Harvey requests that such a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that the 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 Harvey. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3