UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4128
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DESIREE CHAMP TATE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00105-F-5)
Submitted: February 24, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014
Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Desiree Champ Tate pled guilty, pursuant to a plea
agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and a quantity
of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and the
district court sentenced her to a below-Guidelines sentence of
sixty months. Tate’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Tate’s sentence is reasonable. The Government has moved to
dismiss the appeal, arguing that Tate knowingly and
intelligently waived the right to appeal her sentence. Tate was
notified of her right to file a supplemental pro se brief but
has not done so. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). “We generally will enforce a
waiver . . . if the record establishes that the waiver is valid
and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th
Cir.) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), cert.
denied, 133 S. Ct. 196 (2012). A defendant’s waiver is valid if
she agreed to it “knowingly and intelligently.” United
States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).
2
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Tate knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her
sentence and that the issue her counsel asserts on appeal is
within the scope of the waiver. We therefore grant in part the
Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal of Tate’s
sentence. Because the waiver does not preclude our review of
Tate’s conviction, we deny the motion to dismiss in part.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of the
waiver. We therefore affirm Tate’s conviction.
This court requires counsel to inform Tate, in
writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Tate 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 Tate. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3