UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00077-JPB-JES-1)
Submitted: January 30, 2014 Decided: March 12, 2014
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
David Schles, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHLES, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Alan McGonigal, Michael D. Stein,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barton Joseph Adams pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to one count of health care fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1347 (2012), and one count of tax evasion, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2012). The district court
sentenced Adams to concurrent terms of fifty months’
imprisonment and concurrent terms of three years’ supervised
release. The district court also ordered that Adams forfeit
$3,724,721 and pay restitution.
On appeal from the judgment of conviction and the
district court’s post-judgment order denying several of Adams’
then-pending motions as moot, Adams’ counsel has filed a brief
raising six issues for review. Pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel questions whether
Adams’ trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the
proceedings below, whether Adams’ rights under the Sixth
Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act were violated, whether the
district court erred in finding that Adams had been restored to
competency prior to the entry of his guilty plea, and whether
the district court erred in denying Adams’ requests for new
counsel. Counsel also questions whether the district court
erred in holding Adams in contempt in the proceedings below and
whether the court erred in denying a motion to release him from
incarceration on the contempt finding. Relying on the appeal
2
waiver in the plea agreement, the Government moves to dismiss
the appeal. Adams has filed several pro se supplemental briefs.
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
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
Adams knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
convictions, fifty-month prison sentence, the three-year period
of supervised release, and the forfeiture the district court
imposed. We also conclude that counsel does not raise on appeal
any issue falling outside of the compass of Adams’ waiver of
appellate rights. We further conclude that — with the exception
of his complaint regarding the Bureau of Prisons’ failure to
award him sentencing and good-time credit and his challenge to
the district court’s order of restitution — Adams does not raise
in his pro se supplemental briefs any issues falling outside of
3
the compass of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss Adams’ appeal as to all issues
except those that we deem exempt from Adams’ valid and
enforceable waiver of appellate rights.
Although Adams’ appeal waiver insulates his
convictions, prison sentence, term of supervised release, and
the district court’s imposition of forfeiture from appellate
review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of Adams’
pro se claims regarding the computation of his sentence and
challenging the order of restitution or prohibit our review of
the remainder of the record pursuant to Anders. In accordance
with Anders, we have reviewed these claims and the remainder of
the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Adams’ convictions and sentence to
the extent our obligation pursuant to Anders extends to matters
not precluded by the appeal waiver in Adams’ plea agreement.
We further deny Adams’ motions to appoint counsel, for release
pending appeal, and for an expedited decision on appointment of
counsel.
This court requires that counsel inform Adams, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Adams requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
4
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Adams.
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
5