UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4111
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL TRAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:14-cr-00104-FL-1)
Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Travis pled guilty pursuant to a written agreement
to possession of a firearm and ammunition while under a domestic
violence protection order, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(8), 924 (2012). The district court sentenced Travis
within the Sentencing Guidelines range to a term of 57 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Travis challenges the calculation of
his Guidelines range. The Government seeks to enforce the
appellate waiver provision of Travis’ plea agreement.
“It is well settled that a criminal defendant may waive the
statutory right to appeal his sentence.” United States v.
Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015). This court “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). Travis does not
contest the validity of the appeal waiver.
We have reviewed the record and considered Travis’
arguments against enforcement of the waiver. We conclude that
the waiver is enforceable and that the issue on appeal —
establishment of the Guidelines range of imprisonment — falls
squarely within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant
the Government’s motion and dismiss Travis’ appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3