US v. Isaac Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999945666-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00667-JFA-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000000087].. [16-4023]

Appeal: 16-4023

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAAC EZELL JONES, a/k/a Ike,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00667-JFA-4)

Submitted:

December 20, 2016

Decided:

January 9, 2017

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie T. Sarji, SARJI LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
John David Rowell, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4023

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Isaac Ezell Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012).
district

court

imprisonment.

imposed

a

variant

sentence

of

95

The

months’

On appeal, Jones’ counsel filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the
district

court

made

several

errors

in

calculating

Jones’

Sentencing Guidelines range.
Following

our

review

of

the

record,

we

ordered

merits

briefing, directing the parties to address whether the district
court committed plain error in imposing a Guidelines enhancement
for

possession

of

a

dangerous

weapon,

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1).

pursuant

to

U.S.

The Government now

moves to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver
provision in Jones’ plea agreement.

Jones opposes the motion.

For the reasons that follow, we grant the Government’s motion
and dismiss the appeal.
We review de novo the issue of whether a defendant validly
waived his right to appeal.
522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).
to

enforce

the

appeal

United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d
Where, as here, the Government seeks

waiver

and
2

has

not

breached

the

plea

Appeal: 16-4023

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 3 of 5

agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the
issue being appealed falls within the waiver’s scope.

United

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
A defendant’s waiver of appellate rights is valid if he
entered

it

“knowingly

and

intelligently.”

United

Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).

States

v.

Generally, if the

district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver
provision during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is
valid and enforceable.

United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137,

151 (4th Cir. 2005).
In his plea agreement, Jones waived his right to appeal
both his conviction and sentence, reserving only his right to
raise certain postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel

and

prosecutorial

misconduct.

The

language

of

the

waiver is clear and unambiguous, and our review of the record
reveals

that

Jones

understood

its

full

significance.

We

therefore conclude that Jones’ waiver is valid and enforceable.
Even “a defendant who waives his right to appeal does not
subject himself to being sentenced entirely at the whim of the
district court.”
Cir. 1992).

United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th

Thus, we will refuse to enforce a valid waiver to

preclude review of “a few narrowly-construed errors” that fall
automatically outside the scope of the waiver.
F.3d at 151.

Johnson, 410

This “narrow class of claims” includes “errors
3

Appeal: 16-4023

Doc: 43

Filed: 01/09/2017

Pg: 4 of 5

that the defendant could not have reasonably contemplated when
the plea agreement was executed.”
492

F.3d

263,

omitted).
can

270

Cir.

2007)

(internal

quotation

marks

“[T]he type of ‘illegal’ sentence which a defendant

successfully

fundamental
exceeded

(4th

United States v. Poindexter,

challenge

issues,
its

despite

including

authority,

an

claims

premised

appeal
that

waiver

a

its

involves

district

sentence

court
on

a

constitutionally impermissible factor such as race, or violated
the post-plea right to counsel.”

Copeland, 707 F.3d at 530

(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted); see United
States

v.

Thornsbury,

670

F.3d

532,

537-40

(4th

Cir.

2012)

(discussing narrow class of unwaivable sentencing claims).
Jones attempts to characterize his appellate argument as a
due

process

challenge

that

falls

unwaivable sentencing claims.
belies this argument.
to

conclude

enhancement
sentencing

that

error

the

narrow

class

of

However, his merits brief readily

Our review of Jones’ submissions leads us

Jones’

amounts

within

to

challenge
a

falling

to

the

garden-variety
squarely

within

USSG

claim
the

§ 2D1.1(b)(1)
of

procedural

waiver’s

broad

compass.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no potentially meritorious
issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

4

We

Appeal: 16-4023

Doc: 43

therefore

grant

Filed: 01/09/2017

the

Pg: 5 of 5

Government’s

motion

and

dismiss

Jones’

appeal.
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.

DISMISSED

5