US v. Leslie Wade Walker, No. 07-4968 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4968 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LESLIE WADE WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00048-LHT) Submitted: March 23, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew B. Banzhoff, DEVEREUX & BANZHOFF, PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leslie Wade Walker appeals the 212-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Walker argues that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive notice that he would be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act ( ACCA ), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006), the Government failed to prove the predicate offenses necessary to designate him as an armed career criminal, and the Government violated its implicit agreement not to seek a sentence under the ACCA. The Government counters that it did not breach the plea agreement, Walker waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that his claims otherwise lack merit. We find that there was no implicit agreement to exempt Walker from the armed career criminal designation. Cf. United States v. Williams, 488 F.3d 1004, 1011 & n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (declining agreement to by address claim seeking ACCA that Government sentence where breached plea plea agreement discussed only career offender provision, but noting that the Government could no more have agreed to deviate from the statutorily required sentence than could the district court ). Therefore, we conclude that the Government did not breach the plea agreement by pursuing an armed career criminal enhancement. 2 Turning to the waiver of appellate rights, we find that the remainder of Walker s claims are within the scope of the valid waiver. (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part Walker s appeal. 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 AND DISMISSED IN PART 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.
