USCA4 Appeal: 23-4404 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEONTE FATRELL MCCOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:21-cr-00095-D-3)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Daniel M. Blau, DANIEL M. BLAU, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4404 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Deonte Fatrell McCoy pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl,

in violation of

(b)(1)(B), 846. The district court sentenced him to 162

months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

but questioning whether the district court erred in denying McCoy a three-level offense

level reduction for acceptance of responsibility when calculating his advisory Sentencing

Guidelines range. In a pro se supplemental brief, McCoy raises other challenges to the

district court’s Guidelines calculation. The Government moves to dismiss McCoy’s appeal

pursuant to the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in

part.

“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue[s] being appealed

fall[] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher,

(4th

Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant

enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

totality of the circumstances.”

“Generally though, if a district court questions a

defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy

and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver,

the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy,

(4th Cir. 2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4404 Doc: 34 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, confirms that McCoy knowingly and intelligently waived

his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here.

We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing

issues raised by Anders counsel and McCoy fall squarely within the waiver’s scope.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of McCoy’s valid

appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and

dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and

otherwise affirm.

This court requires that counsel inform McCoy, in writing, of the right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McCoy requests 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 McCoy. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

3