UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4309
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD ONEIL WELLS, a/k/a J,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:08-cr-00608-JFA-2)
Submitted: March 20, 2014 Decided: April 10, 2014
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Craig, CRAIG LAW FIRM, PC, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney,
Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerard ONeil Wells seeks to appeal the district
court’s amended judgment resentencing him to the lower mandatory
minimum applicable to his drug conspiracy conviction under the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and Dorsey v. United States, 132 S.
Ct. 2321 (2012). On appeal, Wells contends that his sentence is
unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2012) and that his appeal
waiver does not foreclose review of the issue. The Government
contends that Wells waived the right to appeal his sentence, and
his appeal should be dismissed. We dismiss the appeal.
“Plea bargains rest on contractual principles, and
each party should receive the benefit of its bargain.” United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and
internal quotations omitted). “A defendant may waive the right
to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as the waiver is
knowing and voluntary.” United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349,
354 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d
493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)). We review the validity of an appeal
waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and
the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id.
(citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Wells
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that
2
the issue he seeks to raise on appeal falls within the scope of
the waiver. Wells waived “the right to contest either the
conviction or sentence in any direct appeal or post-conviction
action.” On appeal, he contends that his waiver does not
foreclose review of the issue he seeks to raise, because he was
not aware that he would be sentenced to an unreasonable sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and his sentence is illegal because it
violates 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We conclude that these arguments are
without merit. See United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532,
537-39 (4th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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
3