United States v. April Locklear

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

APRIL LYNN LOCKLEAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:15-cr-00033-D-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

April Lynn Locklear pled guilty, pursuant to a plea

agreement, to conspiracy to make false bank entries, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1005 (2012), and the district

court imposed a downward variant sentence of 24 months’

imprisonment. 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 whether the

district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for

obstruction of justice. Locklear was informed of her right to

file a pro se informal brief, but chose not to do so. The

Government moves to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal

waiver provision in Locklear’s plea agreement. For the reasons

that follow, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

“We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo, and

will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is

within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Copeland, 707

F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “The validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether

the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the

right to appeal.” United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169

(4th Cir. 2005). To determine whether a waiver is knowing and

intelligent, we examine “the totality of the circumstances

. . . , including the background, experience, and conduct of the

2
accused.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally,

if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver

of appellate rights during the [plea] colloquy and the record

indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of

the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Copeland, 707 F.3d at 528

(internal quotation marks omitted).

The language of the appeal waiver in Locklear’s plea

agreement is clear and unambiguous, and the record reveals that

Locklear understood the full significance of the waiver. The

court also confirmed that Locklear was competent to plead guilty

and was entering her plea in the absence of threats, force, or

promises outside of those contained in the plea agreement.

Accordingly, we conclude that Locklear’s appeal waiver is valid

and enforceable.

We also conclude that Locklear’s challenge to the

obstruction of justice enhancement falls squarely within the

scope of the waiver. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in

accordance with Anders and have identified no potentially

meritorious issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion and dismiss

Locklear’s appeal. This court requires that counsel inform

Locklear, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If Locklear requests

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a

3
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 Locklear. 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