UNITED STATES v. BUTLER (2020)

Shawn Leroy Butler pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The district court imposed a 57-month sentence. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Butler's sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to file a pro se brief, Butler has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Butler's plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is “knowing and voluntary.” Id. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant, his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (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. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record confirms that Butler knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that counsel's challenge to the reasonableness of Butler's sentence falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Butler's valid appellate waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government's motion to dismiss in part and dismiss Butler's appeal as to all issues within the waiver's scope, and we deny the motion in part and otherwise affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Butler, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Butler 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 Butler.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.