US v. Robin Travis, No. 07-5148 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-5148 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBIN IRENE TRAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00047-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: October 20, 2008 Decided: November 4, 2008 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryan L. Saunders, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Brian J. Samuels, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robin Irene Travis pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. On appeal, her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Travis s sentence, but concluding meritorious issues for appeal. that there were no The Government filed a brief noting that Travis had waived her right to appeal in her plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. In her plea agreement, Travis waived the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence within the statutory maximum. waiver A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that is knowing and intelligent. United Amaya-Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005). States v. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, this court examines the totality experience, of the conduct, circumstances, educational including background, with the terms of the plea agreement. 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002). the and accused s familiarity United States v. General, The question of whether a defendant validly waived her right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). leads us to conclude that Travis 2 United States v. Blick, Our review of the record knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal the reasonableness of her sentence. Thus, we dismiss the claim raised in Travis s Anders brief. However, an appeal waiver does not preclude (1) challenges to a sentence on the ground that it exceeds the statutory maximum or is based on a constitutionally impermissible factor such as race, (2) appeals from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, or (3) claims concerning a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in proceedings following the guilty plea. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Travis s waiver does not preclude our review pursuant to Anders for any claims that might fall outside the scope of thorough review Travis s conviction the disclosed and waiver. no Nonetheless, meritorious sentence with because issues, regard to a we affirm any claims falling outside the scope of the waiver. Thus, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel the client believes requests that such that a a petition petition would be 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. 3 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
