UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO LANARDO MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00313-D-2)
Submitted: March 29, 2011 Decided: April 11, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Lanardo Mitchell appeals from his conviction
and 102-month sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006); and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2006). Mitchell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), stating that
there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning
whether Mitchell’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Mitchell,
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, has
not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss Mitchell’s
appeal to the extent it challenges his sentence, invoking the
waiver of appellate rights in Mitchell’s 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. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). 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. General, 278
F.3d 389, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2002). The question of whether a
2
defendant validly waived his appeal rights is a question of law
that this court reviews de novo. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 626.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Mitchell knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal
his sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss the appeal of Mitchell’s sentence and dismiss this
portion of the appeal. *
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no issues that are meritorious and outside
the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm Mitchell’s
conviction. This court requires that counsel inform Mitchell,
in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Mitchell 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 Mitchell. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
Mitchell’s waiver preserved the right to raise sentencing
claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel or
prosecutorial misconduct not known to Mitchell at the time of
his plea. He does not raise such claims, and we perceive no
meritorious claims in our Anders review.
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4