UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4692
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY ANTONIO BURLEIGH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00049-HEH-2)
Submitted: February 13, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark H. Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jamie L.
Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Antonio Burleigh appeals from his convictions
and 545-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to
carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2006) (Count
Three); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence (carjacking), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006)
(Count Four); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence (robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(2006) (Count Six).
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 the
district court erred in accepting Burleigh’s guilty plea as to
Count Six because the court had dismissed the count against
Burleigh for the predicate robbery. The Government filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the appellate
waiver contained in Burleigh’s plea agreement; Burleigh’s
counsel opposed the motion as premature. Although Burleigh was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he
did not do so.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Our independent review of
the record leads us to conclude that Burleigh knowingly and
2
intelligently waived his right to appeal. Because we conclude
that the waiver is valid and enforceable as to Burleigh’s
argument on appeal, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no unwaived and meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss and dismiss the appeal. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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.
DISMISSED
3