UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANNY LEE LANGLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00243-FL-1)
Submitted: May 13, 2013 Decided: May 21, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Danny Lee Langley pled guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to bribery and aiding and abetting, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666 and 2 (2006). The district court sentenced
Langley to eighty-four months’ imprisonment. Langley appeals.
On appeal, 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 imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Langley was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal based on the appellate waiver provision in Langley’s
plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo.
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010).
Where the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and did
not breach its obligations under the plea agreement, we will
enforce the waiver if the record establishes that (1) the
defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive his right
to appeal, and (2) the issues raised on appeal fall within the
scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162,
168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). In determining whether a defendant’s
appeal waiver was both knowing and intelligent, we must examine
the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s
2
experience, conduct, educational background, and familiarity
with the agreement’s terms. United States v. General, 278 F.3d
389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002). “An appeal waiver ‘is not knowingly
or voluntarily made if the district court fails to specifically
question the defendant concerning the waiver provision of the
plea agreement during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record
indicates that the defendant did not otherwise understand the
full significance of the waiver.’” United States v. Johnson,
410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v.
Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)).
We conclude that Langley’s waiver was valid and
enforceable as to issues within its scope. Under the plea
agreement, Langley specifically waived his right to appeal a
sentence within or below the Guidelines range established by the
district court * at sentencing. Because Langley, in fact,
received such a sentence, we grant the motion to dismiss insofar
as the appeal addresses the propriety of Langley’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no non-waivable, potentially
meritorious issues that fall outside the scope of the plea
agreement. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to
*
Langley consented to arraignment by magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636 (2006).
3
dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal of Langley’s sentence.
We also deny the motion to dismiss in part and affirm the
district court’s judgment as to all remaining issues. This
court requires that counsel inform Langley, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Langley 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 Langley.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4