US v. Desiree Tate, No. 13-4128 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4128 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DESIREE CHAMP TATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00105-F-5) Submitted: February 24, 2014 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 7, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geoffrey W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Desiree Champ Tate pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846 (2012), and the district court sentenced her to a below-Guidelines sentence of sixty months. Tate s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Tate s sentence dismiss the is reasonable. appeal, The arguing Government that Tate has moved knowingly intelligently waived the right to appeal her sentence. to and Tate was notified of her right to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not done so. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). We generally will enforce a waiver . . . if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 196 (2012). she agreed to it A defendant s waiver is valid if knowingly and intelligently. States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 United Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Tate knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal her sentence and that the issue her counsel asserts on appeal is within the scope of the waiver. We therefore grant in part the Government s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal of Tate s sentence. Tate s Because the waiver does not preclude our review of conviction, we deny the motion to dismiss in part. Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm Tate s conviction. This writing, United of court her States requires right for to further counsel petition the review. If to inform Supreme Tate Tate, Court requests of in the that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Tate. We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED 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.
