UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4122
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY LUCAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00009-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 18, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Lucas appeals his conviction and 24-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, to assaulting a federal
officer resulting in injuries, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)-(b) (2012). On appeal, Lucas’ 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 district court complied with Rule 11
during the hearing accepting Lucas’ guilty plea. The Government
has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver
provision of the plea agreement. We dismiss.
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). A defendant’s waiver of his appeal
rights is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010). Upon review of the plea agreement and the
transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Lucas
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and that
the issue Lucas seeks to raise on appeal falls squarely within
the compass of his waiver of appellate rights.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss.
This court requires that counsel inform Lucas, in writing, of
2
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Lucas 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 Lucas.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3