-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-4267 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODERICK DERRELL JONES, a/k/a Coffee,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 Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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
Document Info
Docket Number: 21-4267
Filed Date: 4/18/2022
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2022