United States v. Maurice Hardy , 555 F. App'x 272 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4513
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MAURICE HARDY, a/k/a Reece,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00358-ELH-2)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Craig M. Sandberg, MUSLIN & SANDBERG, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christine
Marie Celeste, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Hardy appeals his conviction and 192-month
sentence following his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) guilty plea
to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, one kilogram or
more of heroin, and a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). In accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Hardy’s counsel has filed a
brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but questioning whether (1) the district court adequately
complied with Rule 11 when accepting Hardy’s plea, (2) Hardy’s
sentence is reasonable, and (3) Hardy received the effective
assistance of counsel. Although informed of his right to do so,
Hardy has not filed a supplemental brief. The Government moves
to dismiss Hardy’s appeal to the extent the issues he raises are
barred by the appellate waiver in Hardy’s plea agreement, which,
in pertinent part, waives Hardy’s right to appeal his conviction
or a sentence equal to or less than 192 months’ imprisonment.
We grant in part and deny in part the Government’s motion.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012). See, e.g.,
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). A
valid waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue
is within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408
2
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly
waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we review
de novo. Id.Here, Hardy does not contest the validity of his
appellate waiver, and the record indicates that it was knowing
and voluntary. Accordingly, Hardy’s appellate waiver is
enforceable, and his challenge to the reasonableness of his
sentence falls squarely within the scope of his waiver. We
therefore grant in part the Government’s motion and dismiss
Hardy’s appeal of his sentence.
To the extent Hardy challenges the voluntariness of
his plea, that claim is outside the scope of the waiver. The
district court fully complied with Rule 11 when accepting
Hardy’s plea and ensured that the plea was knowing and voluntary
and, therefore, final and binding. United States v. Lambey, 974
F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Finally, because
there is no clear indication that Hardy’s counsel was deficient,
we decline to review this claim on direct appeal. See United
States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 531 n.7 (4th Cir.) (providing
standard), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no unwaived meritorious grounds for
appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in
part. This court requires that counsel inform Hardy, in
3
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Hardy requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on Hardy. 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
4