United States v. Tavon McPhaul , 605 F. App'x 203 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4172
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TAVON MCPHAUL, a/k/a Block,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00616-MJG-3)
Submitted: May 14, 2015 Decided: June 3, 2015
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beth M. Farber, HARRIS O’BRIEN, New York, New York, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Bonnie S.
Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin M. Block,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tavon McPhaul seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence
after pleading guilty. McPhaul’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
the issue of whether McPhaul waived the right to appeal his
conviction and sentence, but concluding that he knowingly and
intelligently did so and there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based in
part on the appeal waiver. McPhaul was notified of his right to
file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
“Plea bargains rest on contractual principles, and each
party should receive the benefit of its bargain.” United States
v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). “A defendant may waive the
right to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as the
waiver is knowing and voluntary.” United States v. Davis, 689
F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Marin,
961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)). We review the validity of
an appeal waiver de novo “and will enforce the waiver if it is
valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
Id. at 354-55 (citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that McPhaul knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
2
sentence. Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the record for any potentially meritorious issues that might
fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his or her
client, in writing, of his or her 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 in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
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
3