US v. Darrell Travis, No. 16-4111 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL TRAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00104-FL-1) Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 21, 2016 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell Travis pled guilty pursuant to a written agreement to possession of a firearm and ammunition while under a domestic violence protection order, §§ 922(g)(8), 924 (2012). in violation of 18 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Travis within the Sentencing Guidelines range to a term of 57 months’ imprisonment. his On appeal, Travis challenges the calculation of Guidelines range. The Government seeks to enforce the appellate waiver provision of Travis’ plea agreement. “It is well settled that a criminal defendant may waive the statutory right to appeal his sentence.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1579 (2015). This court “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” 2013) United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. (internal quotation marks omitted). Travis does not contest the validity of the appeal waiver. We have reviewed the record and considered arguments against enforcement of the waiver. the waiver is enforceable and that the Travis’ We conclude that issue on appeal — establishment of the Guidelines range of imprisonment — falls squarely within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Travis’ appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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.
