US v. Reginald Jone


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4149 Doc: 33 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REGINALD ANTONIO JONES, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?