United States of America v. Carisa M. Confere

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4166
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CARISA M. CONFERE,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00020-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted: July 19, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Stephen G. Jory, MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN & VARNER, L.C.,
Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner,
Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Carisa M. Confere appeals from her conviction and
168-month sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to one
count of aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011). Counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but
questioning whether Confere knowingly and intelligently pleaded
guilty, whether Confere should have received a lower sentence
for assisting the Government, and whether the court imposed an
unreasonable sentence. Confere filed a pro se supplemental
brief asserting the first two issues raised by her counsel. The
Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of
the appellate waiver contained in Confere’s plea agreement;
Confere’s counsel opposed the motion.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Our independent review of
the record supports the conclusion that Confere knowingly and
intelligently waived her right to appeal. Because we conclude
that the waiver is valid and enforceable as to Confere’s
challenges to her sentence, we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss in part and dismiss Confere’s appeal of her sentence.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The language of Confere’s waiver does not encompass
her challenge to the validity of her guilty plea. Therefore, we
deny the motion to dismiss as to this claim. However, our
review convinces us that the claim lacks merit. Prior to
accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must inform the defendant
of the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any
mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty she
faces, and the various rights she is relinquishing by pleading
guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The court also must determine
whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id.; United
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). The
purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the plea of
guilt is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United
States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002). Because the record
confirms that the district court complied with the requirements
of Rule 11, we conclude that Confere’s guilty plea was knowing
and voluntary.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no unwaived and meritorious issues
for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client,
in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for

-- 3 of 4 --

4
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --