US v. Reginald Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999903982-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-cr-00237-H-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999948209]. [16-4149]

Appeal: 16-4149

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD ANTONIO JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:15-cr-00237-H-1)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-4149

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald
his

guilty

Antonio

plea

to

Jones

appeals

possession

with

his

conviction,

intent

to

following

distribute

an

unspecified quantity of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2012), and the 66-month sentence imposed by the
district court.
pursuant

to

On appeal, counsel for Jones has filed a brief

Anders

v.

California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but
questioning

the

procedural

reasonableness

of

Jones’

sentence.

The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
appellate waiver contained in Jones’ written plea agreement.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his
appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2012).

United States

v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135
S. Ct. 1579 (2015).

A waiver will preclude an appeal of “a

specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and the issue being
appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”
waiver

is

valid

intelligently.”
(4th Cir. 2010).

if

he

agreed

to

it

Id.

A defendant’s

“knowingly

and

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627
We review de novo whether a defendant validly

waived his right to appeal.

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d

162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Jones knowingly
2

Appeal: 16-4149

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/17/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and
sentence.

The sentencing claim raised on appeal clearly falls

within the scope of this broad waiver.

Therefore, we grant the

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.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

*

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal that fall
outside the scope of the waiver.

3