UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4840
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DARYL SCOTT BARROW,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00090-JPB-DJJ-1)
Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 16, 2011
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, L. Richard
Walker, Senior Litigator, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld,
II, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United
States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daryl Scott Barrow pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of distribution of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (West 2006
& Supp. 2010). The parties stipulated in the agreement to a
ninety-six month prison sentence, see Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C), and the district court sentenced Barrow in
accordance with the agreement. On appeal, Barrow’s counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court committed plain error
by failing to calculate Barrow’s Guidelines range under the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009). The Government seeks
enforcement of Barrow’s waiver of appellate rights in the plea
agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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 plea colloquy performed in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
2
(4th Cir. 2005). The question of whether a defendant validly
waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court
reviews de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168
(4th Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Barrow knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s request and
dismiss the appeal of Barrow’s sentence. Although Barrow’s
appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate review, the
waiver does not preclude our consideration of the validity of
Barrow’s conviction in accordance with Anders.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the
remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm Barrow’s
conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Barrow, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Barrow 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 thereof
was served on Barrow.
3
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
4