United States v. Barnett , 182 F. App'x 149 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4919
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WELDON VANCE BARNETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-03-268-AW)
Submitted: March 24, 2006 Decided: April 14, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jane Carol Norman, BOND & NORMAN, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Deborah A.
Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Weldon Vance Barnett appeals from the sentence imposed
after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine and fifty grams or more of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court
imposed a sentence of 188 months’ imprisonment, and announced an
alternative sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment pursuant to United
States v. Hammoud, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.) (order), opinion issued
by 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), vacated, 543 U.S. 1097(2005). On appeal, Barnett argues that, in light of United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), he should receive the
sentence that the district court stated it would impose if the
Sentencing Guidelines were not mandatory. The Government asks this
court to dismiss Barnett’s appeal based upon his waiver of
appellate rights.
This court reviews the validity of a waiver de novo,
United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 2000), and will
uphold a waiver of appellate rights if the waiver is valid and the
issue on appeal is covered by the waiver. United States v. Attar,
38 F.3d 727, 731-33 (4th Cir. 1994). A waiver is valid if the
defendant’s agreement to the waiver was knowing and voluntary.
United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992); United
States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991). The
- 2 -
district court’s discussion of the plea agreement was sufficient to
establish that Barnett knowingly and intelligently entered into the
plea agreement and the appellate waiver provision. United
States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 399-401 (4th Cir. 2002).
We have held that a plea agreement’s waiver of the right
to appeal that was accepted prior to the Supreme Court’s decision
in Booker was not invalidated by the Booker decision. United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 170-71 (4th Cir. 2005). Barnett’s
sentence is within the scope of the waiver provision. See Blick,
408 F.3d at 173. We therefore dismiss the 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.
DISMISSED
- 3 -