UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4797
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TIFFANY BOLNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00632-MJG-2)
Submitted: May 29, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Howard Margulies, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellant. Paul E.
Budlow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tiffany Bolner pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to conspiracy to produce child
pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) (2006), and two counts of
production of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (2006).
She was sentenced to 235 months in prison on each count; the
sentences run concurrently. Bolner now appeals. Her attorney
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), questioning whether Bolner validly waived her right
to appeal but concluding that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Bolner has filed a pro se supplemental brief
claiming that her sentence is too severe. The United States
moves to dismiss the appeal in part based on Bolner’s waiver of
her appellate rights. We grant the motion to dismiss, dismiss
in part, and affirm in part.
A defendant may waive her right to appeal if the
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Whether a defendant validly
waived her right to appeal is a question of law that we review
de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2005).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Bolner
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her
conviction and sentence, with the exception of a claim that the
2
sentence exceeded 327 months — the top of her advisory
Guidelines range. We note that the waiver provision was set
forth in a separate paragraph of the plea agreement, which
Bolner signed and indicated that she understood. Further, the
waiver provision was accurately summarized at Bolner’s Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing. Finally, Bolner informed the court at the
hearing that she understood that she was waiving her right to
appeal. We conclude the waiver is valid and enforceable.
Given a valid appeal waiver, the next issue is whether
the issue the appellant seeks to raise lies within the scope of
that waiver. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th
Cir. 2010). Bolner’s claim in her pro se supplemental brief
that her sentence is too severe falls within the scope of the
waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
Bolner’s appeal of her sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. We affirm in
part and dismiss in part. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
denied at this time. This court requires that counsel inform
his 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 at that time for leave to withdraw from
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4