US v. Isaiah Prince, No. 09-5105 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-5105 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ISAIAH N. PRINCE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00036-IMK-JSK-1) Submitted: June 29, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Isaiah N. Prince pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (2006). His plea agreement included a waiver of his rights to appeal or collaterally attack any sentence imposed on him that fell district within court the sentenced applicable Prince to statutory 108 months maximum. The imprisonment, considerably less than the statutory maximum of twenty years. Prince appeals from that judgment. Prince s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she questions the district court s sentencing procedure; however, counsel ultimately concludes that Prince has waived the right to appeal sentencing issues, and that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Prince has filed a pro se brief, in which he challenges the credibility of one of the witnesses who testified against him at his sentencing hearing. The Government has moved to dismiss Prince s appeal as barred by the plea agreement s waiver of appellate rights. This court reviews the validity of an appellate waiver de novo, United States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-03 (4th Cir. 2000), and will uphold a waiver of appellate rights if the waiver is valid and the issue being appealed is covered by the 2 waiver. 2005). United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. A waiver is valid if the defendant s agreement to the waiver was knowing and voluntary. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167 (4th Cir. 1991). To determine voluntarily, this circumstances, whether court including a waiver examines the the experience is knowing totality and of conduct of and the the accused, as well as the accused s educational background and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, if a district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is valid. Wessells, 936 F.2d at 167-68. In this case, Prince does not assert that his waiver was not voluntary. Our appellate review waiver was of the record knowing and discloses voluntary that and Prince s should be enforced to preclude any review of potential sentencing errors, including the issues raised in counsel s Anders brief and in Prince s supplemental pro se brief. The Government s motion to dismiss is therefore granted with respect to any challenge to Prince s sentence. waiver of his Prince s waiver does not, however, include a right to appeal 3 his conviction; thus, the Government s motion is denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of any non-sentencing issues. Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court, through colloquy with the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands the nature of, the charges to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. 11(b). Fed. R. Crim. P. In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this court should accord deference to the trial court s decision as to how defendant. best to conduct the mandated colloquy with the United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). Because Prince did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). must show: To establish plain error, Prince (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg, 2009) 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 unpreserved Rule 11 error). lies within [this (4th Cir. (reviewing The decision to correct the error court s] discretion, and [the court] exercise[s] that discretion only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 4 reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, neither Prince nor his counsel has raised any specific issues relating to Prince s Rule 11 colloquy, let alone shown that plain error occurred. F.3d 400, 402-03 (4th Cir. See United States v. Goins, 51 1995) (discussing factors courts should consider in determining whether substantial rights were affected in decision to plead guilty). the record reveals that the Moreover, our review of district court substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Prince s guilty plea, and that it ensured that Prince s guilty plea was knowing basis. and voluntary and supported by a sufficient See DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 116, 119-20. factual We therefore find no infirmity in the conduct of the Rule 11 proceeding. We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders appeal. the and have not identified any meritorious issues for Accordingly, we affirm Prince s conviction and grant Government s motion Prince s sentence. to dismiss any issues relating to This court requires counsel to inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that believes a petition be filed, but counsel that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that 5 a copy of We dispense the with motion oral was argument served because the on the facts client. 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 6
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.
