UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4733
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISSY A. MAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00161-1)
Submitted: December 13, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jacqueline A. Hallinan, HALLINAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant
United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chrissy A. May appeals from her eighty-seven-month
sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to one count of
conspiracy to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2006). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether May
should have received a lower sentence for assisting the
Government. The Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
on the basis of the appellate waiver contained in May’s plea
agreement. Although informed of her right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, May has not filed one.
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). Our independent review of
the record supports the conclusion that May knowingly and
intelligently waived her right to appeal her sentence. Because
we conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable as to May’s
challenge to her sentence, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss in part. The language of May’s waiver does not
encompass a challenge to the validity of her guilty plea.
Therefore, we deny the motion to dismiss as to May’s conviction.
However, our review of the record convinces us that May’s plea
2
was knowing and voluntary. Accordingly, we affirm May’s
conviction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal
outside the scope of the waiver. This court requires that
counsel inform her client, in writing, of her right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a 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 the client. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3