United States v. Tony Murphy
689 F. App'x 180
4th Cir.2017Background
- Tony Jerome Murphy pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute ≥28 grams of crack cocaine (18 U.S.C. § 841) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- The district court imposed a within-Guidelines term of 266 months for the convictions and a consecutive 24-month sentence after revoking supervised release for separate violations.
- Murphy’s plea agreement included a broad appellate-waiver covering his conviction and sentence, except for a sentence above the Guidelines range and limited claims (e.g., ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct).
- Counsel filed an Anders brief, questioning Murphy’s career-offender classification and the 24-month supervised-release revocation sentence.
- The Fourth Circuit ordered merits briefing on whether certain prior offenses qualified as crimes of violence for career-offender purposes; the Government moved to dismiss the appeal under the appellate waiver, which Murphy opposed.
- The court dismissed the appeal as to the conviction and 266-month sentence (waiver enforced) and affirmed the 24-month supervised-release revocation sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of appellate waiver | Murphy argued the Government waived enforcement by not stating earlier it would move to dismiss and by seeking abeyance | Government argued waiver was valid and it did not waive right to move for dismissal after Beckles resolution | Waiver was valid and enforceable; Government did not waive the right to seek dismissal |
| Whether career-offender challenge is reviewable despite waiver | Murphy sought to appeal career-offender classification (predicate offenses as crimes of violence) | Government relied on waiver covering guideline-range challenges | Challenge fell within the waiver’s scope; appeal dismissed |
| Appealability of supervised-release revocation sentence | Murphy challenged the 24-month revocation sentence | Government maintained this was a separate judgment not covered by the plea waiver | Revocation sentence was within statutory range and not plainly unreasonable; affirmed |
| Whether Anders procedures satisfied | Murphy had counsel file Anders brief questioning potential issues | Government moved to dismiss under waiver; court reviewed record itself | Court conducted full Anders review, found no meritorious issues, and directed counsel to inform Murphy of certiorari rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when counsel believes appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (scope and enforcement of appeal waivers)
- United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2007) (government’s ability to move to dismiss under waiver)
- United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (knowing and intelligent waiver standard)
- United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (Rule 11 colloquy confirming waiver validity)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation sentences)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (affirming revocation sentences that are within statutory range and not plainly unreasonable)