US v. Marquette Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal in part [998474024-2] Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00015-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998611132].. [10-4367]

Appeal: 10-4367

Document: 43

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4367

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUETTE TERRELL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00015-F-1)

Submitted:

May 31, 2011

Decided:

June 14, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
George Edward Bell Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4367

Document: 43

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marquette
written

plea

Terrell

agreement,

Jones

to

pled

guilty,

possession

of

a

pursuant

to

a

firearm

by

a

convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006).

The district court

sentenced Jones to 115 months in prison.

Jones now appeals,

contending that his sentence is unreasonable.

His attorney has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for review.

Jones was advised of his right

to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed such a
brief.

The

Government

moves

to

dismiss

the

appeal

of

the

sentence on the basis of a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision
in Jones’ plea agreement.

We dismiss in part and affirm in

part.
A

defendant

may

waive

the

waiver is knowing and intelligent.
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007).

right

to

appeal

if

the

United States v. Poindexter,
Generally, if the district

court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance
with

Fed.

R.

Crim.

P.

11,

the

waiver

is

both

valid

and

enforceable.

United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th

Cir. 2005).

The question of whether a defendant validly waived

his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo.
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
2

Appeal: 10-4367

Document: 43

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

After

reviewing

the

and

voluntarily

knowingly

Page: 3 of 4

record,

waived

we

the

conclude

right

that

to

Jones

appeal

his

sentence, with the exception of a claim that his sentence is
above the advisory Guidelines range.

We note that the waiver

provision was set forth in a separate paragraph of the plea
agreement, which Jones signed.
at

the

waiver.

properly

conducted

Further, he was fully questioned

Rule

11

hearing

Accordingly, the waiver is valid.

about

the

appeal

Jones’ claim on

appeal that his sentence is unreasonable because the district
court did not consider one argument made at sentencing falls
within the scope of the waiver, * and we accordingly grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss this portion of the appeal.
With respect to Jones’ conviction, our review of the
transcript of the plea colloquy convinces us that the district
court complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Jones’ guilty plea.

The court ensured that the plea

was voluntary, knowing, and supported by an independent factual
basis.

See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20

(4th Cir. 1991).

We therefore affirm the conviction.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none.

*

We therefore

Jones was sentenced within his advisory Guidelines range
of 110-120 months.

3

Appeal: 10-4367

Document: 43

Date Filed: 06/14/2011

Page: 4 of 4

affirm Jones’ conviction and dismiss his appeal of his sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review.

If the client requests that a petition be

filed,

believes

but

counsel

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 was served on the client.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4