UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERNEST DAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cr-00072-F-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ernest Dailey appeals his convictions and 262-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute
28 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012), and to possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2012). On appeal, Dailey’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning the substantive reasonableness of Dailey’s
sentence. 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. 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 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing,
we conclude that Dailey knowingly and voluntarily waived his
right to appeal and that the issue Dailey seeks to raise on
appeal falls squarely within the scope of his waiver of
appellate rights. See Copeland, 707 F.3d at 528.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for potentially meritorious issues not covered by the
waiver and found none. We therefore grant the Government’s
motion and dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel
inform Dailey, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Dailey
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 Dailey.
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