UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4095
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENDRICK DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:15-cr-00075-H-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kendrick Davis pled guilty to distribution of Fentanyl, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012), and was
sentenced at the bottom of his advisory Sentencing Guidelines
range to 151 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel for Davis
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal and acknowledging Davis’ waiver of appellate rights but
questioning whether the district court’s sentence was
substantively reasonable. Davis has not filed a pro se
supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
appellate waiver included in Davis’ plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). United States
v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015). A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a
specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Id. A defendant’s
waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and
intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
(4th Cir. 2010). Whether a defendant validly waived his right
to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
2
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Davis knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence. The sentencing claim raised on appeal clearly falls
within the scope of this broad waiver. We have reviewed the
entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
Therefore, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Davis’
appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Davis requests that such a petition be
filed, but counsel believes that the 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 of the motion was served on Davis. 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