US v. Leander Jone


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999986960-2] Originating case number: 5:16-cr-00019-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000014802]. [16-4556]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4556 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/01/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4556 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. LEANDER DEWEY JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:16-cr-00019-F-1) Submitted: January 26, 2017 Decided: February 1, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4556 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/01/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Leander Dewey Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to manufacturing child pornography and was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. Jones’ counsel now appeals the substantive reasonableness of Jones’ sentence in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Government has moved to dismiss Jones’ appeal based upon a waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement. We conclude that the appeal waiver contained in Jones’ plea agreement is intelligently. valid, as he entered it knowingly and See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Jones’ appeal of the substantive reasonableness his of appellate rights. to the extent sentence is barred by his waiver of Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss that it seeks dismissal of Jones’ substantive reasonableness claim. Furthermore, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal that are outside of the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to any issue not precluded by the plea waiver. 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, 2 Appeal: 16-4556 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/01/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 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 PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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?