US v. Latoya Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00066-GMG-DJJ-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999062433]. [12-4714]

Appeal: 12-4714

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4714

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LATOYA EVETTE JONES, a/k/a Toy,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00066-GMG-DJJ-1)

Submitted:

February 28, 2013

Decided:

March 13, 2013

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Nicholas
J.
Compton,
Assistant
Federal
Public
Defender,
Kristen M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant United States
Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4714

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Evette

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Latoya
114-month

sentence

Jones

entered

pursuant

her
her

to

conviction
guilty

and

plea

to

distribution of cocaine base within 1000 feet of a school.

On

appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but questioning whether Jones’ sentence was
unreasonably high.
waiver

provision

The Government contends that the appellate

in

sentencing error.

Jones’

plea

agreement

bars

any

claim

of

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the
right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006).
Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990).

United States v.

An appellate waiver

must be “the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to
forgo the right to appeal.”

United States v. Broughton-Jones,

71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).

We review de novo whether a defendant has

effectively waived her right to appeal.

United States v. Marin,

961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992).
To
intelligent,

determine
we

examine

whether
“the

a

waiver

totality

of

is
the

knowing

and

circumstances,

including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as
the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the
terms of the plea agreement.”

United States v. General, 278
2

Appeal: 12-4714

F.3d

Doc: 23

389,

citation

Filed: 03/13/2013

400

(4th

omitted).

Cir.

Pg: 3 of 4

2002)

(internal

Generally,

if

a

quotation

court

fully

marks

and

questions

a

defendant regarding the waiver of her right to appeal during the
Rule

11

colloquy,

the

waiver

is

both

valid

and

enforceable.

United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).
However, we will “refuse to enforce an otherwise valid waiver if
to

do

so

would

result

in

a

miscarriage

of

justice.”

Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In

the

plea

agreement,

Jones

agreed

to

waive

all

appellate rights relating to her sentence except for claims that
her

sentence

exceeded

the

maximum

statutory

sentence.

Our

review of the record convinces us that Jones’ waiver was knowing
and intelligent, and she does not contend otherwise.
conclude

that

the

sentencing

issue

raised

by

We further

counsel

in

the

Anders briefs falls within the scope of the appellate waiver
provision,

and

we

therefore

dismiss

the

appeal

of

Jones’

sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly examined
the entire record for any other potentially meritorious issues
outside the scope of Jones’ appeal waiver and have found none.
Therefore we affirm Jones’ conviction.

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
3

Appeal: 12-4714

Doc: 23

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

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.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4