Background
Trent Dashun Starnes pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court varied below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of two hundred seventy-six months imprisonment. Starnes’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea agreement.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability. An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it. The court looked to the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience, conduct, educational background, and knowledge of the plea agreement. The record confirmed that Starnes knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence. The challenge to the reasonableness of the sentence fell squarely within the scope of the valid appeal waiver. The court found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the waiver’s scope.
We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within its scope.
United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2023)
What it means going forward
The appeal is dismissed regarding all issues covered by the waiver, and the sentence is affirmed. Counsel must inform the defendant of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download