UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4534
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIAN JOHNSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00307-FL-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 7, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Ryan Willis, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George
E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Johnson pled guilty to one count of conspiracy
to interfere with commerce by robbery and aiding and abetting,
18 U.S.C. § 1951 & 2 (2006), * and was sentenced to a term of 198
months of imprisonment. Johnson seeks to appeal his sentence,
arguing that the district court incorrectly increased his
offense level by two levels for carjacking, and failed to
adequately consider the sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006). The government contends that the appeal should be
dismissed based on Johnson’s waiver of appellate rights in his
plea agreement. We agree, and dismiss the appeal.
We review a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights de
novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2005). A defendant may waive the 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 defendant
is fully questioned about the waiver during the plea colloquy,
the waiver is valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson,
*
A magistrate judge, acting with Johnson’s consent,
conducted the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. See United States v.
Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 285 (4th Cir. 2003) (magistrate judge may
conduct hearing if defendant waives right to enter guilty plea
before district court judge).
2
410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). We will enforce a valid
waiver if the issue raised on appeal is within the scope of the
waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Here, the record reveals that Johnson’s waiver was
knowing and voluntary. His challenges to his sentence are
within the scope of the waiver provision. We therefore 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