UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4562
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TITUS TERRELL GRADY, a/k/a Hell Rell,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00127-D-1)
Submitted: January 27, 2014 Decided: January 31, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Marilyn G. Ozer, MASSENGALE & OZER, Chapel Hill, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Titus Terrell Grady pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court
calculated Grady’s Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2012) at 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment and
sentenced Grady to 312 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Grady’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 312-month
sentence is reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the
appeal of Grady’s sentence based on the waiver of appellate
rights included 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 a plea colloquy performed in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
(4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly waived his right
2
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
Grady knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
312-month sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss and dismiss the appeal of Grady’s sentence. Although
Grady’s appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate
review, the waiver does not prohibit our review of his
conviction pursuant to Anders. In accordance with Anders, we
have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm
Grady’s conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Grady, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Grady 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 Grady.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4