US v. Derrick Aylor, No. 09-4569 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4569 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DERRICK SCOTT AYLOR, Defendant Appellant. No. 09-4577 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DERRICK SCOTT AYLOR, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cr-00021-PJM-1; 8:08-cr-00489-PJM-1) Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. April 16, 2010 Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Jonathan C. Su, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Scott Aylor pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 2113(a), (f) (2006). The district court calculated Aylor s total offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2008) at 21 and his criminal history in Category IV, resulting in a Guidelines imprisonment range of 57 to 71 months on each count. The district court sentenced Aylor to 71 months imprisonment. Aylor guilty plea breached and the opportunity interview. appeals sentence plea to and are agreement participate asserts void by on because failing in appeal a to the that Government afford presentence his him an debriefing The Government moves to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Aylor s knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal his sentence bars this appeal. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. A waiver is Portillo, defendant knowing 423 and F.3d may waive the intelligent. 427, 430 (4th right to United Cir. appeal States 2005). To if v. that Amaya- determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, this court examines the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused s educational background agreement. and familiarity United States with v. 3 the terms of General, 278 F.3d the 389, plea 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding regarding the waiver of his right to appeal, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). However, an appeal waiver does not bar the appeal of a sentence imposed in excess of the statutory validity of a guilty plea. maximum or a challenge to the See General, 278 F.3d at 399 n.4. Nor does it bar an appeal raising issues not within the scope of the waiver. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Aylor knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence * and that the district court fully questioned Aylor regarding that waiver. Accordingly, the waiver is valid. Aylor claims that the appeal waiver is not enforceable because the Government breached the plea agreement. This court will not enforce an otherwise valid appeal waiver against a defendant if the [G]overnment containing that waiver. breached the plea agreement United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490, * Pursuant to the plea agreement s appeal waiver, Aylor agreed to waive his right to appeal from any sentence within or below the advisory Guidelines range resulting from an adjusted offense level of 21. 4 495 (4th Cir. 2006). The Government breaches the plea agreement when a promise it made to induce the plea goes unfulfilled. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). See Because Aylor did not raise this issue in the district court, we review it for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428 (2009). Although acknowledging that the written plea agreement contains no provision obligating the Government to afford him the opportunity interview, to Aylor participate claims that in the a presentence agreement was debriefing modified by statements made during the guilty plea and sentencing hearings. As a general rule, integrated written plea agreements are not United States v. Martin, 25 F.3d open to oral supplementation. 211, 217 n.4 (4th Cir. 1994). However, this court has recognized exceptions to this rule in particular circumstances where the Government open court. has made affirmative representations in See United States v. Wood, 378 F.3d 342, 349-50 (4th Cir. 2004); Martin, 25 F.3d at 214-17. After review of the record, we conclude that the plea agreement was not orally supplemented to include a provision requiring the Government to afford Aylor the opportunity participate in a presentence debriefing interview. to Accordingly, the Government did not breach the plea agreement by failing to afford Aylor such an interview. 5 Aylor s claim of breach therefore fails, and the plea agreement and its appeal waiver are enforceable against Aylor. sentence falls within the Because Aylor s challenge to his waiver s scope, Government s motion to dismiss in part. we grant the Although Aylor s appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of any challenges to the validity of Aylor s conviction. Consequently, we deny the motion to dismiss in part. Turning, then, to Aylor s conviction, Aylor claims on appeal that his guilty plea is void Government s breach of the plea agreement. not barred merit. by the appeal waiver, we as a result of the While this claim is conclude it is without Accordingly, we affirm Aylor s conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately expressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED 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.
