US v. Leander Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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