Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04625/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04625-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jason Clifton Whitney
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4625

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JASON CLIFTON WHITNEY, a/k/a Fat J, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00128-FL-1) 

Submitted: March 17, 2020 Decided: April 2, 2020

Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4625 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/02/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jason Clifton Whitney pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with 

intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2018), and possession 

of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A) (2018). The district court sentenced Whitney to 27 months’ imprisonment 

on the marijuana possession count and a consecutive term of 60 months’ imprisonment on 

the § 924(c) firearm count. On appeal, Whitney’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal, but questioning whether the mandatory 60-month consecutive sentence 

applicable to Whitney’s § 924(c) firearm conviction violates the Eighth Amendment and 

the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. Whitney was informed 

of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government 

elected not to file a brief and does not seek to enforce the appeal waiver in Whitney’s plea 

agreement.*

 We affirm. 

Counsel’s challenge to Whitney’s § 924(c) sentence—raised for the first time on 

appeal and thus subject to review for plain error only, United States v. Walker, 934 F.3d 

375, 378 (4th Cir. 2019)—is foreclosed. See United States v. Khan, 461 F.3d 477, 495 

(4th Cir. 2006) (rejecting argument that lengthy sentences imposed by § 924(c) “are so 

 * Because the Government fails to assert the appeal waiver as a bar to this appeal, 

we may consider the issue raised by counsel and conduct an independent review of the 

record pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 

2007). 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4625 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/02/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

long as to constitute a violation of due process, equal protection, and the Eighth 

Amendment prohibition against Cruel and Unusual punishment”). Whitney thus fails to 

establish plain error in this regard. Further, in accordance with Anders, we have reviewed 

the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm 

the criminal judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Whitney, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Whitney 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 Whitney. 

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. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4625 Doc: 22 Filed: 04/02/2020 Pg: 3 of 3