UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4413
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY LYNN SAUNDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cr-00002-RAJ-DEM-2)
Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James R. Theuer, JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Lynn Saunders pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2012), and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court sentenced him to a
term of 300 months in prison. In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saunders’ attorney has filed a
brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in
denying Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Saunders
filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting that his guilty
plea was neither knowing nor voluntary. The Government has
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on Saunders’ waiver
of appellate rights. We deny the motion and affirm.
We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). A
defendant may waive his right to appeal as part of a valid plea
agreement. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th
Cir. 2010). In assessing whether an appellate waiver bars a
defendant’s appeal, we analyze both the validity and the scope
of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168, 171
n.10 (4th Cir. 2010). “The validity of an appeal waiver depends
2
on whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to
waive the right to appeal.” Id. at 169.
Saunders does not challenge the validity of the waiver.
Moreover, a review of the record indicates that the district
court specifically reviewed the terms of the appellate waiver
with Saunders during the plea colloquy. Given no indication in
the record to the contrary, we conclude that Saunders’ waiver of
appellate rights is valid and enforceable.
Saunders’ appellate waiver does not, however, preclude our
review of the voluntariness of the plea or the district court’s
denial of Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v.
Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). Thus, we deny the
Government’s motion to dismiss Saunders’ appeal. Our review of
the plea colloquy leaves us with no doubt that Saunders
knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea and that the plea was
supported by an independent basis in fact. With regard to the
denial of Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we have
reviewed the record and, after carefully considering the factors
set forth in United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 384 (4th
Cir. 2012), conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Saunders’ motion, see id. at 383 (stating
standard of review).
3
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, mindful of the scope of the appellate waiver, and
have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore
affirm the district court’s order denying Saunders’ motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. This court requires that counsel
inform Saunders, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Saunders requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Saunders.
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.
AFFIRMED
4