UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CLAYTON ATKINSON, a/k/a Howard Clark,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00070-BO-1)
Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
& Writing Attorney, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clayton Atkinson appeals his convictions for
conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and to transport stolen
funds and goods in interstate commerce, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 1341 (2006), and his 150-month sentence. Atkinson’s
attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal but questioning whether Atkinson’s sentence is
procedurally reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal of the sentence as barred by Atkinson’s waiver of the
right to appeal included in the written plea agreement. We
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript
of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Atkinson
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his
sentence and that the sentencing issue he seeks to raise on
appeal falls squarely within the scope of his waiver of
appellate rights. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion
to dismiss in part and dismiss the challenge to Atkinson’s
sentence.
Because Atkinson did not waive his right to appeal his
convictions, we deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Atkinson knowingly
2
and voluntarily entered valid guilty pleas and that the pleas
were supported by a sufficient factual basis. See United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
for non-waivable meritorious issues and have found none.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment as to
Atkinson’s convictions.
This court requires that counsel inform Atkinson, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Atkinson 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 Atkinson. 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
3