US v. Eric Rivers, No. 13-4314 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4314 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC MIGUEL RIVERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00027-D-1) Submitted: January 31, 2014 Decided: February 27, 2014 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Eric Miguel Rivers seeks to appeal the district court s order granting in part the Government s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence. Rivers argues that the district court failed to exercise its discretion in a meaningful way when it refused to reduce Rivers sentence to the extent requested by the United States, despite exceptional assistance to the Government. Rivers purported The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Rivers waiver of the right to appeal included in his plea agreement. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Rivers knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). The issue raised by Rivers falls within the scope of that waiver. 537 (4th See United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, Cir.), Accordingly, cert. because denied, Rivers 133 knowingly S. and Ct. 196 (2012). voluntarily entered into the waiver and the Government now seeks to enforce it, we grant the motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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.
