Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    United States v. Edward Brantley, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Brantley's § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Brantley had pleaded guilty and was sentenced as a career offender, but later argued in his § 2255 motion that he no longer qualified as such based on a Supreme Court decision. However, the Fourth Circuit found that Brantley had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement. Therefore, the waiver was valid and his § 2255 claim fell within the scope of the waiver. The Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions to reinstate Brantley's original sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Edward Brantley, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views3 pages
    The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Brantley's § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Brantley had pleaded guilty and was sentenced as a career offender, but later argued in his § 2255 motion that he no longer qualified as such based on a Supreme Court decision. However, the Fourth Circuit found that Brantley had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement. Therefore, the waiver was valid and his § 2255 claim fell within the scope of the waiver. The Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions to reinstate Brantley's original sentence.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-11-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-4752

    Original Title

    United States v. Edward Brantley, Jr., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Brantley's § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Brantley had pleaded guilty and was sentenced as a career offender, but later argued in his § 2255 motion that he no longer qualified as such based on a Supreme Court decision. However, the Fourth Circuit found that Brantley had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement. Therefore, the waiver was valid and his § 2255 claim fell within the scope of the waiver. The Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions to reinstate Brantley's original sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views3 pages

    United States v. Edward Brantley, JR., 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's order granting Brantley's § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Brantley had pleaded guilty and was sentenced as a career offender, but later argued in his § 2255 motion that he no longer qualified as such based on a Supreme Court decision. However, the Fourth Circuit found that Brantley had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence in his plea agreement. Therefore, the waiver was valid and his § 2255 claim fell within the scope of the waiver. The Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions to reinstate Brantley's original sentence.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-4752

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    EDWARD MILLER BRANTLEY, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:07-cr-00020-BO-1; 5:10-cv-00600-BO)

    Submitted:

    October 30, 2013

    Decided:

    November 8, 2013

    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Thomas
    G.
    Walker,
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Jennifer
    P.
    May-Parker, Eric D. Goulian, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Richard A. McCoppin,
    MCCOPPIN & ASSOCIATES, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Edward

    Miller

    Brantley,

    Jr.,

    pleaded

    guilty

    to

    distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)


    (2006).

    The district court originally sentenced Brantley to 108

    months of imprisonment, grounded in part on an enhancement under


    the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing
    Guidelines.

    See U.S.S.G. 4B1.1.

    Brantley subsequently filed

    a 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, arguing that he


    did not qualify as a career offender, citing the Supreme Courts
    decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010).
    The Government moved to dismiss the motion based in part on the
    waiver

    of

    appellate

    agreement.
    motion

    The

    and

    retroactively

    rights

    district

    determined

    contained

    court,

    however,

    that

    the

    to

    cases

    applicable

    in

    rule

    Brantleys
    granted

    of

    on

    plea

    Brantleys

    Carachuri

    collateral

    was

    review,

    Brantleys claim was cognizable on collateral review, and under


    United

    States

    v.

    Simmons,

    649

    F.3d

    237

    (4th

    Cir.

    2011)

    banc), Brantley no longer qualified as a career offender.

    (en
    The

    district court then resentenced Brantley to twenty-seven months


    of imprisonment.
    The

    Government

    has

    appealed,

    arguing

    that

    Brantley

    waived his right to collaterally attack his sentence and that


    such a claim is not cognizable on collateral review.
    the validity of an appeal waiver de novo.
    2

    We review

    United States v.

    Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).

    We will enforce an

    appeal waiver to preclude a defendant 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).

    We have thoroughly reviewed

    the record and conclude that Brantleys waiver of his appellate


    rights was knowing and voluntary and that the issue he sought to
    raise

    fell

    within

    the

    scope

    of

    that

    waiver.

    See

    United

    States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528-30 (4th Cir. 2013), cert.
    denied, Copeland v. United States, No. 12-10514, 2013 WL 2370444
    (U.S. Oct. 7, 2013).
    Accordingly,
    granting

    the

    because

    the

    order

    We

    argument

    vacate

    courts

    remand with instructions to re-enter the original judgment.


    oral

    motion,

    district

    and

    with

    2255

    vacate

    sentence,

    dispense

    Brantleys

    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

    You might also like