US v. Elijah Ben Paschelke, No. 09-4726 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ELIJAH BEN PASCHELKE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00097-JPB-DJJ-2) Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Elijah Ben Paschelke pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aiding and abetting the manufacture of marijuana, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2006). The district Paschelke to 188 months imprisonment. court sentenced On appeal, Paschelke s counsel has filed an Anders 1 brief suggesting that there are no non-frivolous district plea. issues court for plainly appeal, erred but in questioning accepting whether Paschelke s the guilty The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal in part based on Paschelke s waiver of appellate rights and in part on the lack of merit in the unwaived issue. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. A defendant may waive the waiver is knowing and intelligent. 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). right to appeal if that United States v. Poindexter, Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. enforceable. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). 1 The question of whether a defendant validly Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Paschelke knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. We therefore grant the Government s motion to dismiss in part and decline to perform any Anders review of Paschelke s sentence. Although Paschelke s appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of the claim Paschelke s counsel raises on appeal 2 or prohibit conviction pursuant to Anders. our review of Paschelke s Consequently, we deny the motion to dismiss in part. Turning, then, to the claim raised in counsel s brief, because Paschelke did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). review of the transcript of the plea hearing leads Our us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with the 2 The Government moves to dismiss the claim raised by counsel as meritless. This constitutes, in effect, a motion for summary affirmance of the unwaived claim. This court reserves such a motion for extraordinary circumstances not present here. 4th Cir. R. 27(f). 3 mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Paschelke s guilty plea and that the court s substantial rights. omissions did not affect Paschelke s Critically, the transcript reveals that the district court ensured the plea was supported by an independent factual basis and that Paschelke entered the plea knowingly and voluntarily an States See United with v. (4th Cir. 1991). In understanding DeFusco, 949 of the F.2d 114, consequences. 116, 119-20 Accordingly, we discern no plain error. accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the remainder of the record in this case and have found no unwaived and meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Paschelke s conviction and dismiss any appeal of his sentence. We also deny Paschelke s motions seeking an extension of time to file a pro se supplemental brief and for other relief. This court requires that counsel inform Paschelke, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Paschelke 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 Paschelke. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 5
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.
