US v. Cory Currie - Criminal Appeal

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 4307 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORY FERNANDO CU RRIE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of No rth Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Distri ct Judge. (1:24 - cr - 00084 - WO -1) Submitted: February 26, 202 6 Decided: March 3, 2026 Before NIEMEY ER and QUATTLEB AUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in p art by un publis hed per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Tod d A. Smith, SM ITH GILE S, PLLC, Burlington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant U nited States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolin a, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Cory Fernando Currie pleade d guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribu te methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), (b)(1) (B). The district court initially sentenced Currie to 180 months’ imp risonment, in the middle of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Currie appealed, and the parties jointly moved to remand for resentencing becau se the Government was obliged by Currie’s plea agreement to r ecommend a sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range. At the resentencing hearing, the Government co mplied with that obligation, and th e court imposed a sentence of 16 8 months’ imprisonment — at the bottom of th e Guidelines range. Currie now appeals. On appeal, counsel h as filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no merito rious grounds for appeal but q uestioning the adequacy of C urrie’s Fed. R. Crim. P 11 hearing, the validity of the appeal waiver in his plea agreement, and the reasonableness of his s entence. Currie filed a pro se su pplemental brief arguing that his counsel rendered in effective assistance. The Government h as moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant t o Currie’s appeal waiver. We dismiss i n part and affirm in part. “When the government seeks to enfo rce an appeal waiver and h as 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 (4 th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). Upon review of th e record, including the plea agreement and transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that the district court conducted a thorough and complete Rule 11 hearing and that Currie knowingly and v oluntari ly pleaded guilty and waived his right

3 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, including counsel’s challenge to Currie’s sentence. The appeal waiver does not preclu de our review of Currie ’s ineffective assista nce of counsel claim. However, “ [u] nless an atto rney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, [ineffective assistance] claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 5 07 - 08 (4th Cir. 2016). The recor d before us does not conclusively establish that plea co unsel rendered ineffective assistance. Accordingly, Currie ’s “ineffective assistance claim [s] should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 546 (4t h Cir. 2 023) (citation modified). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the sco pe of Currie ’s valid app eal waiver. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issu es within the waiver’s scope and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judg ment. This court requires that counsel info rm Currie, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Currie requests that a petition be filed, but counsel b elieves that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representatio n. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Currie. We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument w ould not aid the decision al process. D ISMISSED IN PAR T, AFFIRM ED IN PAR T