United States v. Deric Simons

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-4637
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4637 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4637

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERIC BREON SIMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00168-RBS-DEM-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Andrew M. Stewart, SLOANE STEWART, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Kristin Greene Bird, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Megan Marina Montoya, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4637 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Deric Breon Simons appeals the 348-month sentence imposed following his guilty

plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to interference with commerce by robbery and

conspiracy to commit same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2, and brandishing a firearm

during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). On appeal,

Simons’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Though notified of his right to

do so, Simons has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government now moves to

dismiss based on the appeal waiver contained in Simons’ plea agreement. Through

counsel, Simons states that he does not oppose the Government’s motion. We affirm in

part and dismiss in part.

We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Thornsbury,

670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant from

appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue

being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217,

221 (4th Cir. 2014). A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver

“knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.

2010). “Generally, 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.” Thornsbury,

670 F.3d at 537.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4637 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

We have reviewed the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and

conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. In accordance with Anders, we have

reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no potentially meritorious grounds

for appeal that are outside of the appellate waiver’s scope or are not waivable by law. We

therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the

waiver’s scope and affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel

inform Simons, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States

for further review. If Simons 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 Simons.

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