UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-4632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

RONALD L. PHILLIPS, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Frederick P. 

Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:06-cr-00047-FPS) 

Submitted: September 17, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kevin D. Mills, MILLS & WAGNER, PLLC, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States 

Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Thomas O. Mucklow, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Ronald L. Phillips was indicted on one count of attempting 

by use of the internet to persuade or entice a minor to engage 

in sexual activity (Count 1) and one count of traveling in 

interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in sexual 

conduct with a minor (Count 2). See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 

2423(b). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Phillips pled guilty to 

Count 1. The district court thereafter sentenced him to a term 

of 120 months imprisonment. Phillips now appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion seeking specific performance of a 

prior plea agreement that he contends is binding on the 

government. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the 

judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings. 

 Generally, a defendant who pleads guilty waives all 

nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings conducted prior to 

entry of the plea. United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644 

(4th Cir. 2004). However, in limited circumstances, a defendant 

may enter a conditional guilty plea under Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) and preserve certain pretrial issues 

for appeal. Interpreting Rule 11(a)(2), we held in Bundy that a 

conditional plea is not valid if it purports to preserve for 

appeal an issue that is not case-dispositive. Id. at 647. An 

issue is case-dispositive only if (1) an appellate ruling in the 

defendant’s favor would require on remand either a dismissal of 

2 
3 

the charges or suppression of essential evidence, and (2) an 

appellate ruling in the government’s favor would require an 

affirmance of the judgment of conviction. Id. at 648. 

 After the parties filed their appellate briefs, we 

requested supplemental briefs on the issue of whether the 

purported conditional plea in this case is proper in light of 

Bundy. In their supplemental briefs, the parties acknowledge 

that the issue presented by this appeal – i.e., Phillips’ 

entitlement to specific performance of the prior plea agreement 

– is not case-dispositive. For that reason, we hold that this 

appeal is not properly before us. The parties further 

acknowledge, correctly in our view, that because Phillips only 

entered into the plea agreement and pled guilty based on the 

express understanding that he would be able to pursue this 

appeal, the appropriate course under Bundy is for us to vacate 

the judgment of conviction and remand this case to the district 

court for further proceedings. See id. at 649-50.

 Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and 

remand this case to the district court for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED