United States of America v. Derrick Smith

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DERRICK SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:14-cr-00170-CCB-1)
Submitted: September 16, 2015 Decided: September 23, 2015
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Joshua Thomas Ferrentino, Assistant United States
Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Smith seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence
after pleading guilty. Smith’s attorney has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising
the issues of whether his guilty plea was valid and whether his
sentence was reasonable, but concluding there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal. The Government has moved to dismiss the
appeal as barred by Smith’s waiver of the right to appeal
included in the plea agreement. Smith was notified of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
“Plea bargains rest on contractual principles, and each
party should receive the benefit of its bargain.” United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). “A defendant may waive the
right to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as the
waiver is knowing and voluntary.” United States v. Davis, 689
F.3d 349, 354 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Marin,
961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992)). We review the validity of
an appeal waiver de novo “and will enforce the waiver if it is
valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
Id. at 354-55 (citing Blick, 408 F.3d at 168).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Smith knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sentence. Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed
the record for any potentially meritorious issues that might
fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his or her
client, in writing, of his or 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 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --