United States v. Walker , 321 F. App'x 281 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4968
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LESLIE WADE WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00048-LHT)
Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Andrew B. Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, PLLC, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leslie Wade Walker appeals the 212-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Walker argues
that his due process rights were violated because he did not
receive notice that he would be sentenced under the Armed Career
Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), the Government
failed to prove the predicate offenses necessary to designate
him as an armed career criminal, and the Government violated its
implicit agreement not to seek a sentence under the ACCA. The
Government counters that it did not breach the plea agreement,
Walker waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that his
claims otherwise lack merit.
We find that there was no implicit agreement to exempt
Walker from the armed career criminal designation. Cf. United
States v. Williams, 488 F.3d 1004, 1011 & n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
(declining to address claim that Government breached plea
agreement by seeking ACCA sentence where plea agreement
discussed only career offender provision, but noting that “the
Government could no more have agreed to deviate from the
statutorily required sentence than could the district court”).
Therefore, we conclude that the Government did not breach the
plea agreement by pursuing an armed career criminal enhancement.
2
Turning to the waiver of appellate rights, we find
that the remainder of Walker’s claims are within the scope of
the valid waiver. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
(4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in
part Walker’s appeal. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
3