Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04149/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reginald Antonio Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Antonio Jones appeals his conviction, following 

his guilty plea to possession with intent to 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. On appeal, counsel for Jones has filed a brief 

pursuant to 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.” Id. A defendant’s 

waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and 

intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 

(4th Cir. 2010). 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 

Appeal: 16-4149 Doc: 33 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
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. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not 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.

Appeal: 16-4149 Doc: 33 Filed: 10/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 3