US v. Damon Dickerson, No. 11-4055 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMON GERARD DICKERSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00402-CCB-1) Submitted: November 10, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan A. Gladstone, LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN GLADSTONE, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damon Gerard Dickerson appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). Dickerson pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to the agreed-upon term of 188 months imprisonment. Dickerson s plea agreement contained a provision waiving his right to appeal his conviction or a sentence of 188 months district imprisonment. court On improperly appeal, Dickerson sentenced him criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). as claims an that armed the career Dickerson stipulated in his plea agreement that he met the qualifications of an armed career criminal. The Government seeks dismissal of Dickerson s appeal based on Dickerson s waiver of his appellate rights. We approach the question of whether a defendant has waived his right to appeal in connection with a plea proceeding de novo. 2010). United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. Where the United States seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and there is no claim that the United States breached its obligations under the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if the record establishes that (1) the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal; and (2) the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 2 United Dickerson does not challenge the intelligent waiver of his appellate rights. knowing and Instead, he argues that he was sentenced in excess of the maximum statutory penalty for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because he was improperly designated and sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). We find this issue waived for appeal, as Dickerson stipulated he was an armed career criminal and is bound by his stipulation. See United States v. Martinez, 122 F.3d 421, 423 (7th Cir. 1997). Thus, we enforce the appellate waiver and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
