US v. Isaac Jone
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [16-4023]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
December 20, 2016
January 9, 2017
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
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).
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
Sentencing Guidelines range.
briefing, directing the parties to address whether the district
court committed plain error in imposing a Guidelines enhancement
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1).
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).
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d
Where, as here, the Government seeks
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.
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
A defendant’s waiver of appellate rights is valid if he
Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).
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
waiver is clear and unambiguous, and our review of the record
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
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.
This “narrow class of claims” includes “errors
Pg: 4 of 5
that the defendant could not have reasonably contemplated when
the plea agreement was executed.”
“[T]he type of ‘illegal’ sentence which a defendant
United States v. Poindexter,
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
(discussing narrow class of unwaivable sentencing claims).
Jones attempts to characterize his appellate argument as a
unwaivable sentencing claims.
belies this argument.
However, his merits brief readily
Our review of Jones’ submissions leads us
record in this case and have found no potentially meritorious
issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver.
Pg: 5 of 5
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
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Jones.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?