UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES S. WOLFE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00002-IMK-1)
Submitted: March 2, 2012 Decided: March 9, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney,
Randolph J. Bernard, John C. Parr, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James S. Wolfe appeals the 87-month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to possession of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (West & Supp. 2011).
On appeal, Wolfe argues that the district court imposed an
unreasonable sentence. The Government filed a responsive brief,
arguing that this court should dismiss Wolfe’s appeal based on
the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We conclude that
Wolfe knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal and
that the issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of his
waiver. We therefore dismiss Wolfe’s appeal.
A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the
right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United States v.
Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We review the
validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will uphold a waiver
of appellate rights if the waiver is knowing and intelligent and
the issue being appealed is covered by the waiver. United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). In
determining whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, we
examine the totality of the circumstances, Manigan, 592 F.3d at
627, including “the background, experience, and conduct of the
accused,” United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir.
1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Wolfe knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal a
sentence of 120 months or less. Because we conclude that
Wolfe’s challenge to his eighty-seven-month sentence falls
within the scope of the waiver, we dismiss his 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