United States v. Donnell Pittman ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONNELL MAURICE PITTMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00348-FL-1)
Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 16, 2020
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry F. Rose, TERRY F. ROSE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Smithfield, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donnell Pittman pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2018), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2018). The district court sentenced Pittman to
101 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Pittman argues that the district court improperly
calculated his base offense level by relying on a quantity of cocaine attributed to him
outside the offense date. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by
Pittman’s waiver of the right to appeal included in his plea agreement.
An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant from appealing a specific issue if the
record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is within the scope
of the waiver.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant
validly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver “knowingly and intelligently.”
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). “To determine whether a
waiver is knowing and intelligent, we examine the totality of the circumstances, including
the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s educational background
and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670
F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally, if a district
court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R.
Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full
significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id.
2
Our review of the Rule 11 colloquy and the plea agreement confirms that Pittman
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence and that Pittman’s claim
that the district court miscalculated his Sentencing Guidelines range falls squarely within
the scope of the waiver. We therefore enforce the appellate waiver and grant the
Government’s motion to 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
3