United States v. Roderick Jones ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4267 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODERICK DERRELL JONES, a/k/a Coffee, a/k/a Base,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (4:20-cr-00061-M-1)
Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022
Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua
L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4267 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Derrell Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and distribution of 50
grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The
district court sentenced Jones to concurrent terms of 216 months’ imprisonment, below his
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Jones’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but questioning whether Jones’ sentence is procedurally reasonable. Jones was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Jones’
plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is
enforceable” and “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). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant
enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the
totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a
defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy
and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver,
the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4267 Doc: 27 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
Our review of the record confirms that Jones knowingly and intelligently waived
his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here.
And we conclude that the sentencing issue counsel pursues in the Anders brief falls
squarely within the scope of the waiver.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal that are outside of the appellate waiver.
We therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as
to all issues covered by the appellate waiver. We also deny in part the motion to dismiss
and otherwise affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jones 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 Jones.
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 the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3