US v. Larry Burleigh, No. 11-4692 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4692 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY ANTONIO BURLEIGH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:11-cr-00049-HEH-2) Submitted: February 13, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark H. Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Antonio Burleigh appeals from his convictions and 545-month sentence entered pursuant to his guilty plea to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2006) (Count Three); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (carjacking), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) (Count Four); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006) (Count Six). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in accepting Burleigh s guilty plea as to Count Six Burleigh motion waiver because for to the dismiss contained the court predicate the in had dismissed robbery. appeal on The the Burleigh s the Government basis plea counsel opposed the motion as premature. count of the agreement; against filed a appellate Burleigh s Although Burleigh was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he did not do so. A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Our independent review of the record leads us to conclude 2 that Burleigh knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. that the waiver is valid and Because we conclude enforceable as to Burleigh s argument on appeal, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no unwaived and meritorious issues for appeal. dismiss and Accordingly, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. the client requests that a petition be filed, but If counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. was served on this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof the client. 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. DISMISSED 3
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.
