UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4368
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS JEFFREY ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00357-BR-2)
Submitted: September 25, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Alan D. Campbell, S. Hamilton, Massachusetts, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Curtis Jeffrey Robinson appeals the 262-month sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty plea,
pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit
Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2006), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence
and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2 (2006). On appeal, Robinson’s counsel
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether the district court’s sentence was
proper. Robinson was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but did not file one. The Government has
filed a motion to dismiss Robinson’s appeal based on the
appellate waiver provision in the plea agreement. We grant the
Government’s motion in part and dismiss Robinson’s appeal of his
sentence, and we deny the Government’s motion in part and affirm
Robinson’s convictions.
We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate
rights. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.
2005). “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that
waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.” United States v. Amaya-Portillo,
423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
2
omitted); see United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th
Cir. 2002) (providing standard). Generally, if the district
court fully questions the defendant about the waiver during the
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 plea colloquy, the waiver
is valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d
137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). We will enforce a valid waiver so
long as “the issue being appealed is within the scope of the
waiver.” Blick, 408 F.3d at 168.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Robinson’s waiver of appellate rights was knowing and
intelligent. Thus, the waiver is valid and enforceable.
Turning to the scope of the waiver, we conclude that the
sentencing issues raised in the Anders brief fall within the
scope of the appellate waiver provision. Robinson was sentenced
to 262 months’ imprisonment, a sentence at the low end of the
Guidelines range that was established at the sentencing hearing.
Therefore, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part
and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
The waiver provision does not, however, preclude our
review of Robinson’s convictions pursuant to Anders. Robinson
does not assert any error in the district court’s acceptance of
his guilty plea. We have reviewed the plea colloquy for plain
error and have found none. See United States v. Martinez, 277
F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing standard); see also
3
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (detailing
plain error standard).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious
issues for review. We therefore affirm Robinson’s convictions.
This court requires that counsel inform Robinson, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Robinson requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Robinson. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4