United States of America v. Christopher Mckinley Barnes, a/k/a Black

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4646
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MCKINLEY BARNES, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00163-JAG-RJK-2)
Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022
Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Elizabeth M. Wood-Hanna, WOOD HANNA LAW, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Christopher McKinley Barnes pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to manufacture and distribute
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and possession of a firearm
in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The
district court sentenced Barnes to 240 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Barnes’ attorney
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Barnes did
not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal
pursuant to the appeal waiver in Barnes’ 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). Upon review of the record, including the plea
agreement and transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Barnes
knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the
waiver’s scope.
The waiver provision, however, 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). We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss. Because Barnes
did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing

-- 2 of 3 --

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 Barnes 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).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Barnes’ valid appellate
waiver. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope and
affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. At this juncture, we deny counsel’s
motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform Barnes, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Barnes 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 Barnes.
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 in the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --