UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4347
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
FRED JIMMY CONDREY, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00322-PMD-1)
Submitted: October 27, 2011 Decided: November 7, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
O. Grady Query, Paul N. Uricchio, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, E.
Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Fred Jimmy Condrey, Jr., appeals from the district
court’s 240-month sentence following his guilty plea to one
count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006), and one count of
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Condrey
challenges his sentence as unreasonable, arguing that the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors warranted a significantly lower
sentence and that the district court erred in considering
Condrey’s prior statements in calculating the drug weight
attributable to him. The Government filed a responsive brief
arguing that, because Condrey waived his right to appeal his
sentence, this court should dismiss Condrey’s appeal. In his
reply brief, Condrey argued that his waiver was not valid.
Concluding that Condrey validly waived his right to appeal his
sentence, and that the issues raised are within the scope of the
waiver, we dismiss his appeal.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). The question of whether a
defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of
law that we review de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d
162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). We look to the totality of the
2
circumstances to determine whether a particular waiver is
knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d
621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record leads us to
conclude that Condrey did knowingly and voluntarily waive the
right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Both of the issues
raised in Condrey’s brief fall within the scope of the waiver.
We therefore dismiss Condrey’s appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3