UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4918
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY WAYNE BARNES, a/k/a C,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00032-NKM-1)
Submitted: February 28, 2012 Decided: March 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Frederick T. Heblich,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee,
Research and Writing Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Ronald M.
Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Wayne Barnes appeals the 264-month sentence he
received after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, 100
grams of heroin, and 500 grams of powder cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2006) and 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006), and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006). Barnes pleaded guilty pursuant
to his written plea agreement, which included a waiver of
Barnes’ appellate rights. Specifically, Barnes waived his right
to appeal his sentence on any of the grounds set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2006) or any other ground.
The sole issue Barnes raises on appeal is whether the
district court committed procedural error in calculating the
drug quantity attributable to him. Barnes faults the district
court for failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and for
failing to explain its methodology on the record. In its
response brief, the Government seeks to dismiss the appeal based
on the appellate waiver.
We review de novo the question of whether a defendant
has waived his right to appeal in connection with a guilty plea.
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010).
Where the United States seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and
there is no claim that the United States breached its
2
obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver
if the record establishes that (1) the defendant knowingly and
intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal; and (2) the
issue raised on appeal falls within the compass of the waiver.
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
Based on our review of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing, we readily conclude that Barnes knowingly and
intelligently entered into the plea agreement of his own
volition, and that he understood the terms of the appellate
waiver. We further conclude that the sole issue raised on
appeal falls squarely within the scope of the broadly worded
waiver. Thus, we enforce the appellate waiver and dismiss this
appeal. See id. We deny Barnes’ motion to file a pro se
supplemental brief. 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