United States v. Anthony Watson, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Anthony Watson, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4620
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY WATSON,
Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00390-MOC-1)
Submitted:
January 22, 2015
Decided:
February 6, 2015
Before KING, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arza Feldman, FELDMAN & FELDMAN, Uniondale, New York, for
Appellant.
Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Richard
Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Watson appeals the five concurrent 235-month
sentences imposed by the district court following his guilty
plea to four counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
2113(a) (2012), and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 924(e) (2012).
On
appeal,
in
Watson
applying
contends
threat
of
that
death
the
district
enhancement
court
in
erred
calculating
the
offense level applicable to one of the robbery counts, rendering
that sentence unreasonable.
The Government seeks to enforce the
appellate
in
waiver
provision
Watsons
plea
agreement.
We
conclude that Watson validly waived his appellate rights and
that the sentencing issue raised on appeal is barred by the
waiver
provision.
We
therefore
dismiss
the
appeal
on
that
basis.
We review de novo a defendants waiver of appellate
rights.
United
States
v.
Copeland,
707
F.3d
Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013).
522,
528
(4th
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
omitted).
Generally,
if
district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of
appellate
rights
during
the
Rule
2
11
colloquy
and
the
record
indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of
the waiver, the waiver is valid.
670
F.3d
532,
537
(4th
Cir.
United States v. Thornsbury,
2012).
The
magistrate
judges
failure to specifically question Watsons understanding of the
waiver provision is not, however, dispositive of the question of
whether
the
waiver
was
knowing
and
intelligent.
States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002).
United
To answer
that question, we consider the totality of the circumstances,
including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as
the accuseds educational background and familiarity with the
terms of the plea agreement.
omitted).
Id. (internal quotation marks
We will enforce a valid waiver so long as the issue
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.
Copeland, 707 F.3d
at 528 (internal quotation marks omitted).
After considering the totality of the circumstances,
we conclude that Watsons waiver of appellate rights was knowing
and intelligent.
Further, the sentencing issue Watson raises on
appeal falls within the scope of the appellate waiver provision.
Therefore,
we
dismiss
the
appeal.
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
