United States of America v. Andrew Dale Moore

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4155
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW DALE MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-cr-00156-FL-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C.
Leisten, Research & Writing Attorney, Raleigh, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Dale Moore pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to receipt of child pornography, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2) (2012). The district court sentenced Moore to a
within-Guidelines sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment. On
appeal, Moore’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Moore’s
sentence is substantively unreasonable. The Government has
moved to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appellate
rights included in the plea agreement. Although informed of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Moore has not done
so. We dismiss the appeal.
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). Generally, if the district court
fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to
appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and enforceable.
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).
Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a
question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States
v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Moore
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
conviction and his 235-month sentence. We therefore grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. This
court requires that counsel inform Moore, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Moore 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 Moore. 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

-- 3 of 3 --