United States of America v. Farrell Lee Chatman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5108
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FARRELL LEE CHATMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00378-D-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Farrell Lee Chatman appeals his conviction and 135-
month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams
or more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2006). On appeal,
counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal, but setting forth several arguments at Chatman’s request
challenging the validity of the plea and the reasonableness of
the sentence. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the
appeal on the basis that Chatman explicitly waived his right to
appeal in the plea agreement. Chatman opposes the motion on the
basis that the Government breached the plea agreement and
engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by declining to file a
motion pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1
(2009).
We review the validity of a waiver de novo and will
uphold a waiver of appellate rights if the waiver is valid and
the issue being appealed is covered by the waiver. United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 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.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
1992); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir.
1991).
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. General, 278
F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Generally, if a district court fully
questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights
during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Chatman knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the
conviction and sentence. To the extent Chatman claims that the
Government breached the plea agreement or otherwise engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct in declining to file a downward
departure motion based on substantial assistance, we conclude
that his claim is squarely contradicted by the record. Wade v.
United States, 504 U.S. 181, 184-87 (1992).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in the case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal outside the scope of the appellate waiver. Accordingly,

-- 3 of 4 --

4
we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Chatman’s motion to replace counsel. This
court requires that counsel inform Chatman, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Chatman 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 Chatman. 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

-- 4 of 4 --