Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-18-04887/USCOURTS-ca4-18-04887-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dion Alexander
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-4887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DION ALEXANDER, a/k/a Will,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00364-RDB-11)

Submitted: February 24, 2020 Decided: February 28, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven M. Klepper, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. 

James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4887 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dion Alexander appeals his conviction and 108-month sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, to conspiracy to 

distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 

(2018). On appeal, Alexander contests the validity of his guilty plea and the propriety of 

the district court’s decision to accept the plea agreement. The Government has moved to 

dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver provision contained in the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) 

agreement. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Thornsbury, 

670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant from 

appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the issue 

being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 

221 (4th Cir. 2014). However, a valid appeal waiver will not preclude a defendant from 

raising issues on appeal that “fall within the narrow class of claims that we have allowed a 

defendant to raise on direct appeal despite a general waiver of appellate rights,” United 

States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 220 n.2 (4th Cir. 2005), which includes colorable 

challenges to the validity of the defendant’s guilty plea, see United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 

727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994).

At the Rule 11 hearing, Alexander expressed concern that police misconduct tainted 

some of his prior state court convictions, thereby inflating his criminal history and resulting 

in an unwarranted career offender designation. The district court assured Alexander that 

these prior convictions would not impact his sentence, given that the parties had agreed to 

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4887 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

a prison term of 108 months, well below the 155-to-188-month Sentencing Guidelines 

range produced by the career offender enhancement. On appeal, Alexander contends that 

the court misled him because, absent these offenses, the top end of his Guidelines range 

might have been lower than 108 months. However, the court was correct that, because 

Alexander entered into a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, he was bound by the parties’ joint 

sentencing recommendation, regardless of the validity of the state offenses. Thus, we 

conclude that the court properly advised Alexander as to the relevance of the state 

convictions at issue, and we therefore affirm Alexander’s conviction.

Next, Alexander asserts that, in the course of satisfying itself that a 108-month 

sentence was appropriate, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 6B1.2(c), p.s. (2016), 

the court miscalculated the Guidelines range that would have applied had the disputed state 

offenses been expunged. We conclude that this argument—essentially arising from a 

purported Guidelines error—falls within the scope of Alexander’s valid appeal waiver.*

Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss as to Alexander’s guilty 

plea challenge and affirm Alexander’s conviction. As to Alexander’s remaining claims, 

we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 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 PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART

 * We further reject Alexander’s contention that this claim is not subject to waiver 

because it arose from a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) error or ineffective assistance or counsel that 

conclusively appears from the face of the record. See United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 

502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016).

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4887 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/28/2020 Pg: 3 of 3