US v. Christine McLamb, No. 09-4318 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4318 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTINE MCLAMB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00173-RBH-1) Submitted: October 22, 2009 Decided: November 16, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Meetze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christine agreement, to McLamb pled embezzlement, guilty, pursuant in violation of 18 to a U.S.C. plea § 656 (2006), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006). She was sentenced to a total of seventy- five months imprisonment. In her appeal, she contends that the district court committed both procedural and substantive error when imposing her sentence. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss, invoking the appeal waiver contained in McLamb s plea agreement. Because McLamb s appeal is barred by her waiver, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss. Whether a defendant effectively waived her right to appeal pursuant to a plea bargain is an issue of law that is reviewed de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Where Cir. appeal 2005). waiver and the the government appellant does seeks not to enforce an that the contend government is in breach of its plea agreement, a waiver will be enforced if the record shows the waiver is valid and challenged issue falls within the scope of the waiver. Id. the An appeal waiver is valid if it is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the right to appeal. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). whether a defendant s waiver results 2 from a To decide knowing and intelligent decision, we examine the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 1992) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant at her Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding regarding the waiver of her waiver is both valid and enforceable. right to appeal, the See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). As McLamb s counsel concedes, McLamb s waiver of her right to appeal was knowingly and intelligently entered. The district court conducted a thorough plea colloquy in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, ensuring that McLamb understood she was pleading doing so. guilty, The judge and the rights verified that she would McLamb relinquish in finished the had twelfth grade, as well as some business school, had never been treated for alcohol or drug abuse or mental illness, and had not taken any drugs, alcohol, or medication that would affect her ability to understand the proceedings. The judge further confirmed that McLamb was satisfied with her attorney and was aware of the rights she would be giving up by pleading guilty, as well as the possible penalties she faced by pleading guilty. McLamb affirmed that she was pleading guilty voluntarily and had not been forced to do so. 3 freely and The Government summarized the conditions of McLamb s plea agreement including that she had waived her right to appeal. aloud, The judge then reiterated that McLamb was waiving her right to appeal, and verified that she wished to do so freely and voluntarily after consulting with her lawyer. Accordingly, because McLamb knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea agreement, the appeal waiver is valid, and will bar any appeals that fall within its scope. On appeal, McLamb asserts that her sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. However, as these alleged errors fall within the scope of her waiver of appeal, we find that review of these issues is barred by the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
