US v. Ernest Wright, No. 14-4322 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERNEST JOSHON WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00126-FL-1) Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Keating Wiles, CHESHIRE, PARKER, SCHNEIDER & BRYAN, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ernest Joshon Wright appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, oxycodone, methadone, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012), and possession of a firearm by a convicted (2012). felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Wright pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to seventy-eight months imprisonment. On appeal, counsel for Wright has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in finding at sentencing that Wright is a very dangerous person. brief alleging Wright has filed a pro se supplemental ineffective prosecutorial misconduct. the appeal as barred by assistance of trial counsel and The government has moved to dismiss the appellate waiver included in Wright s plea agreement. We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). We generally will enforce a waiver if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and that the waiver. issue being appealed is within the scope of the United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 A defendant s waiver is valid intelligently. if he agreed to it knowingly and United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Wright knowingly and conviction voluntarily and sentence, waived with his certain right to appeal specified his exceptions. Because the government seeks to enforce this valid waiver, we grant the motion to dismiss in part and dismiss Wright s appeal as to the sentencing claim raised in the Anders brief, which is clearly within the waiver s scope. We decline to consider Wright s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the record does not conclusively establish representation. (4th Cir. 2008) any deficiencies in counsel s See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (providing standard). Such challenges to counsel s performance are not cognizable on direct appeal and must be pursued, if at all, in a proceeding for postconviction relief. United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed Wright s remaining pro se claim and the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm the district 3 court s judgment as to all issues not encompassed by Wright s broad waiver of appellate rights. This writing, of court the requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Wright, Court of in the If Wright 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 Wright. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED 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.
