Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    United States v. Daniels, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of Daniels' sentence due to Daniels waiving his appellate rights in a written plea agreement. The court conducted an Anders review of the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, the court affirmed Daniels' conviction but dismissed the appeal of his sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Daniels, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views4 pages
    The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of Daniels' sentence due to Daniels waiving his appellate rights in a written plea agreement. The court conducted an Anders review of the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, the court affirmed Daniels' conviction but dismissed the appeal of his sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-5210

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of Daniels' sentence due to Daniels waiving his appellate rights in a written plea agreement. The court conducted an Anders review of the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, the court affirmed Daniels' conviction but dismissed the appeal of his sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    13 views4 pages

    United States v. Daniels, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the appeal of Daniels' sentence due to Daniels waiving his appellate rights in a written plea agreement. The court conducted an Anders review of the entire record and found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, the court affirmed Daniels' conviction but dismissed the appeal of his sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 08-5210

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ERVIN WASHINGTON DANIELS,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever III,
    District Judge. (7:08-cr-00036-D-1)

    Submitted:

    December 17, 2009

    Decided:

    December 23, 2009

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam


    opinion.

    David L. Neal, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ervin
    written

    plea

    Washington

    agreement

    Daniels

    to

    one

    pled

    count

    guilty
    of

    pursuant

    manufacturing

    to

    child

    pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 2251(a) (West Supp.


    2009).

    On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

    California,

    386

    U.S.

    738

    (1967),

    asserting

    there

    are

    no

    meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following issue:


    whether the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by
    erring as a matter of law in the application of U.S. Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual 2G2.1(b)(2)(B) (2008), failing to consider
    all the 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009) factors,
    failing to adequately explain the sentence imposed, and treating
    the unreasonably high advisory Sentencing Guidelines range as
    presumptively reasonable.
    dismiss

    the

    appeal

    appellate waiver.

    of

    The Government has filed a motion to


    Daniels

    sentence

    on

    the

    grounds

    of

    For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the

    appeal of Daniels sentence and affirm his conviction.


    We grant the Governments motion to dismiss the appeal
    of Daniels sentence.

    See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493,

    496 (4th Cir. 1992) (providing review standard).

    The record

    reveals that Daniels waived his right to appeal any sentence not
    in excess of a sentence imposed within the advisory Sentencing
    Guidelines range and that this waiver was reviewed with Daniels

    at his plea hearing, which also revealed that he knowingly and


    voluntarily
    Wessells,

    pled
    936

    guilty

    F.2d

    165,

    to

    his

    167-68

    offense.
    (4th

    United

    Cir.

    States

    1991).

    v.

    Because

    Daniels 360-month sentence was within his properly-calculated


    sentencing range; not in excess of the statutory maximum, United
    States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399 n.4 (4th Cir. 2002); not
    imposed for a constitutionally improper reason, United States v.
    Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992); and not in violation
    of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, United States v. Attar,
    38 F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994); we grant the Governments
    motion to dismiss the appeal of Daniels sentence.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
    appeal.

    Accordingly, we affirm Daniels conviction.

    requires

    that

    counsel

    inform

    his

    client,

    in

    This court

    writing,

    of

    his

    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 this court for leave to withdraw from
    representation. Counsels motion must state that a copy thereof
    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

    You might also like