US v. Michael Woodard, Jr., No. 12-7937 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7937 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MICHAEL LEONARD WOODARD, JR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00191-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00106-BO) Submitted: May 21, 2013 Decided: June 6, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Devon L. Donahue, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Woodard pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and MDMA (ecstasy), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). The district court originally sentenced Woodard to 180 months of imprisonment. appellate counsel California, district offender. 386 court We filed U.S. erred a 738 in affirmed brief pursuant (1967), finding Woodard s Woodard appealed, and to questioning that Woodard conviction Anders whether was but a v. the career granted the Government s motion to dismiss Woodard s appeal of his sentence based on the appellate waiver. See United States v. Woodard, 450 F. App x 310 (4th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). Woodard then filed a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, again arguing that he did not qualify as a career offender, citing this court s decision in United Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). States v. The district court granted Woodard s motion, finding that this issue fell outside the scope of the waiver of collateral review and that under Simmons, Woodard no longer qualified as a career offender. The district court then resentenced Woodard to a total of 101 months of imprisonment. that the district court The Government now appeals, arguing erred in 2 concluding that the career offender issue was outside the scope of the appellate waiver and that such a claim is not cognizable on collateral review unless a defendant is actually innocent of the underlying offenses. We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). will enforce an appeal waiver to preclude a defendant We from raising an issue if the waiver is valid and the issue on appeal is within the scope of the waiver. Id.; see also United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir. 2005) (defendant may waive the right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence as long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary). have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that We the district court erred in concluding that Woodard s claim fell outside the scope of his appellate already determined on direct appeal waiver. that This court Woodard s has appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that the Simmons issue fell within States v. the scope Woodard, of the 450 appellate F. App x waiver. 310 (4th See United Cir. 2011) (unpublished); see also Lemaster, 403 F.3d at 220 n.2 ( [W]e see no reason to distinguish between waivers of direct-appeal rights and waivers of collateral-attack rights. ). Moreover, we conclude that this claim is not the type of issue that Woodard could not have reasonably contemplated at the time of his plea agreement. 3 See Blick, 408 F.3d at 172 (claims that the district court erred in calculating the loss amount under the Guidelines and that the sentencing enhancements under the Guidelines violated the subsequently-decided opinion in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not fall outside the scope of the appellate waiver). Finally, our unpublished decision in United States v. Yancey, 463 F. App x 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2012) (unpublished), is inapplicable to this appeal as the government there conceded at sentencing that the defendant could appeal his classification as a career offender. Accordingly, granting the because the order We argument vacate court s remand with instructions to enter the original judgment. oral motion, district and with § 2255 vacate sentence, dispense Woodard s we the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 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.
