UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4632
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER V. JOHNSON, a/k/a Christopher Miller, a/k/a Milla
on Deck,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-
cr-00356-JKB-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 25, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas J. Saunders, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Zachary
Augustus Myers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher V. Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit
bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012), and aggravated identity theft,
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), (c)(4), (c)(5) (2012); 18 U.S.C. § 2
(2012). The district court sentenced him to 78 months on the bank
fraud charge and a consecutive 24 months for the identity theft.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning the propriety of
the sentencing enhancements imposed for leadership role,
obstruction of justice, and engaging in reckless and dangerous
behavior. Counsel also questions whether the district court
properly computed Johnson’s criminal history category and whether
trial counsel provided effective assistance. Although advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Johnson has not
done so. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
based on the appeal waiver in Johnson’s plea agreement. We affirm
in part, and dismiss in part.
“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 we “will enforce the
2
waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope
of the waiver.” Id. at 354-55 (citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).
We have reviewed the plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P.
11 hearing, and we conclude that Johnson’s guilty plea and his
appeal waiver were knowing and voluntary. We therefore conclude
that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Johnson’s challenges to
the enhancements to his sentence and to the computation of his
criminal history category are squarely foreclosed by the appellate
waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal, in part.
Johnson also asserted that he was denied the effective
assistance of trial counsel. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness
conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective
assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal.
United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008).
Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient
development of the record. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d
214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the record does not
conclusively establish that counsel provided ineffective
assistance to Johnson, we conclude that these claims should be
raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record for
any potentially meritorious, unwaived issues, and we have found
3
none. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.
This court requires that counsel inform Johnson, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Johnson requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Johnson. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4