United States v. Tyrese Stokley

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 2024
• Docket: 24-4089
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4089 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRESE STOKLEY, a/k/a Ty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00016-D-1)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Ryan M. Prescott, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4089 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Tyrese Stokley pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to distribution of

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced

Stokley to 240 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.

Stokley now appeals. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

questioning whether Stokley’s guilty plea was valid and whether his sentence was

reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss Stokley’s appeal pursuant to the

appellate waiver in his plea agreement.

The waiver provision in the plea agreement does not preclude our review pursuant

to Anders of the validity of the guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364

(4th Cir. 2018). Because Stokley did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the

adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811

F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir.

2018) (discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that

Stokley entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported

the plea, and that his guilty plea is valid. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116,

119-20 (4th Cir. 1991) (discussing district court’s obligations under Rule 11).

Next, “[w]e 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, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th

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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4089 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

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

totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a

defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the

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

waiver is valid.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the

Rule 11 hearing, and conclude that Stokley knowingly and intelligently waived his right to

appeal his conviction and sentence. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and

enforceable and that the sentencing issues raised by Anders counsel 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 Stokley’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 appeal waiver. We also affirm the

remainder of the judgment.

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

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Stokley 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 Stokley. We dispense with oral argument because

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4089 Doc: 24 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

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