United States v. Tyrone Davis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2023
• Docket: 22-4709
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRONE ROSWELL DAVIS, a/k/a Bloody Tye, a/k/a Turtle,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00281-FL-1)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, John Gibbons, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Roswell Davis pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court

sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. 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 Davis’ appellate waiver was knowing and voluntary,

whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and whether there is any evidence of

prosecutorial misconduct. Davis was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but he has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant

to the appellate waiver in Davis’ plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver

if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v.

Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is “knowing and

voluntary.” Id. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we consider

the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant,

his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.”

United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

omitted). 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.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

Our review of the record confirms that Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived his

right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions. We therefore conclude

that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Although Davis’ ineffective-assistance claim falls

outside the scope of the waiver, “we will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial

record itself that the defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v.

Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). Because the present

record does not conclusively show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Davis’

claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016). Davis’

prosecutorial-misconduct claim also falls outside the scope of the waiver, but our review

of the record revealed no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside of Davis’ valid appellate waiver. We

therefore grant the Government’s motion in part and dismiss the appeal as to the issues

within the scope of the waiver. We otherwise affirm the judgment. This court requires

that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Davis 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 Davis.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4709 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

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