United States v. Christopher Piance

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4351 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-4351 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER PIANCE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00005-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: May 8, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024 Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4351 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Christopher Piance seeks to appeal his sentence after pleading guilty to access with intent to view child pornography involving a prepubescent minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). On appeal, Piance’s attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether the Government violated Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at sentencing by discussing inculpating statements allegedly made by Piance to investigators that were not previously disclosed in discovery, but concluding there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Piance’s appeal waiver. Piance was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal. “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and has not breached the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A ‘valid’ appeal waiver is one entered by the defendant knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id. “When a district court questions a defendant during a Rule 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid.” Id. We review this issue de novo. Id. “We have consistently held that appellate waivers in valid plea agreements are enforceable.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). “Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and as with any contract, each party is entitled to receive the *3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4351 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 4 benefit of his bargain.” United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). But, there is “a ‘narrow class of claims that we have allowed a defendant to raise on direct appeal despite a general waiver of appellate rights.’” United States v. Moran, 70 F.4th 797, 802 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023). “An appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a sentence ‘based on a constitutionally impermissible factor’ or ‘a sentence imposed in excess of the maximum penalty provided by statute.’” United States v. Cornette, 932 F.3d 204, 209 (4th Cir. 2019). Moreover, we will not enforce an appeal waiver if doing so “would result in a ‘miscarriage of justice.’” United States v. McKinney, 60 F.4th 188, 192 (4th Cir. 2023). “[T]o establish such a miscarriage of justice, a defendant need only make ‘a cognizable claim of actual innocence.’” Id. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Piance knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and the issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. Moreover, we have reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues that might fall outside the waiver and have found none. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Piance, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Piance 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 Piance. *4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4351 Doc: 27 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 4 of 4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED