UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4748
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRICIOUS BURNELL BROOKS, a/k/a Turkey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Louise W.
Flanagan, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00021-FL-1)
Submitted: March 12, 2012 Decided: March 29, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Marilyn G. Ozer, MASSENGALE & OZER, Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terricious Burnell Brooks pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess
with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of the real
property comprising a school or playground more than fifty grams
of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 860 (2006). The district court calculated
Brooks’ Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual (2010) at 360 months to life in prison and sentenced
Brooks to 252 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Brooks’ counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal,
but questioning whether the district court erred in its
calculation of the drug weight attributable to Brooks. Brooks
has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he raises
challenges to his sentnece. The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal of Brooks’ sentence based on his waiver of appellate
rights. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
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). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
2
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
(4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly waived his right
to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Brooks knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
and dismiss the appeal of Brooks’ sentence. Although Brooks’
appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate review, the
waiver does not prohibit our review of Brooks’ conviction
pursuant to Anders. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the remainder of the record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm Brooks’
conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform Brooks, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Brooks 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 Brooks.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4