US v. William Pait, Jr., No. 13-4666 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4666 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM LEE PAIT, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00187-BR-1) Submitted: August 1, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Lee Pait, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. months ยง 2251(a), (2012), and On imprisonment. (e) was appeal, counsel sentenced has filed to a 600 brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the evidence admitted at sentencing and the reasonableness of Pait s sentence. Pait was informed of his right to file a pro se brief but has not done so. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that Pait knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. In his plea agreement, Pait waived the right to appeal his sentence, except to the extent that it exceeded the Guidelines range established at sentencing. A defendant may waive waiver is appeal fall the intelligent right and waiver s scope. to the appeal issues if that raised on knowing and within the United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349, 354-55 (4th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). The validity of an appeal waiver ultimately is evaluated by reference to the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver 2 of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Id. record determined reveals that the district court A review of the Pait was competent to plead guilty, had the opportunity to discuss his plea agreement with counsel, entered his guilty plea in the absence of threats or force, and understood the terms of his appeal waiver. Moreover, the sentence imposed did not exceed the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Thus, we conclude that Pait validly waived his right to appeal his sentence and that the claims raised on appeal fall within the scope of his waiver. the See Davis, 689 F.3d at 354-55. Government s motion to dismiss in Accordingly, we grant part and dismiss the appeal of Pait s sentence. Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement precludes our review of Pait s sentence, the waiver does not preclude our review of any errors in Pait s conviction that may be revealed by our review pursuant to Anders. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Thus, as to Pait s conviction, we deny in part the Government s motion to dismiss and affirm the conviction. This writing, United of court his States requires right for to further that counsel petition the review. If 3 inform Supreme Pait Pait, 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 Pait. 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 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.
