US v. Daryl Barrow, No. 10-4840 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4840 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DARYL SCOTT BARROW, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00090-JPB-DJJ-1) Submitted: February 15, 2011 Decided: March 16, 2011 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daryl Scott Barrow pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, violation of to 21 & Supp. 2010). ninety-six count U.S.C.A. of distribution ยง 841(a)(1), of (b)(1)(C) heroin, (West in 2006 The parties stipulated in the agreement to a month 11(c)(1)(C), one and prison the sentence, district accordance with the agreement. Fed. see court R. sentenced Crim. P. Barrow in On appeal, Barrow s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the district court committed plain error by failing to calculate Barrow s Guidelines range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2009). The Government seeks enforcement of Barrow s waiver of appellate rights in the plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. A defendant may waive the waiver is knowing and intelligent. 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). right to appeal if that United States v. Poindexter, Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. enforceable. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 2 (4th Cir. 2005). The question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Barrow knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his sentence. dismiss We the therefore appeal of grant the Barrow s Government s sentence. request Although and Barrow s appeal waiver insulates his sentence from appellate review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of the validity of Barrow s conviction in accordance with Anders. In remainder accordance of the with record in Anders, this meritorious issues for review. we case have and reviewed have found the no We therefore affirm Barrow s conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Barrow, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Barrow Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Barrow. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
