Court Opinion

ID: 9930430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:01:06.00773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:30.254889
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4379      Doc: 37         Filed: 02/05/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4379

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JAMEL TYREE LUNSFORD, a/k/a Action, a/k/a Beaver,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cr-00356-CCE-1)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 5, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Ames C. Chamberlin, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4379      Doc: 37         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamel Tyree Lunsford pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs

        Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a), and two counts of brandishing a

        firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The

        district court sentenced him to a total of 201 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel

        has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there

        are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Lunsford’s sentence is

        reasonable. Lunsford has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that the Government

        unconstitutionally delayed bringing his case and requesting credit toward his federal

        sentence for time served on a related state sentence. The Government moves to dismiss

        Lunsford’s appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in

        part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue[s] being appealed

        fall[] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th

        Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant

        enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the

        totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a

        defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy

        and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver,

        the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4379       Doc: 37         Filed: 02/05/2024       Pg: 3 of 4

        transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, confirms that Lunsford knowingly and intelligently

        waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not

        applicable here.    We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

        Furthermore, the sentencing issues raised in the Anders brief and Lunsford’s challenge in

        the pro se brief to the timeliness of his indictment fall squarely within the waiver’s scope.

        See United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010) (“When a defendant

        pleads guilty, he waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings conducted prior to

        entry of the plea.”); see also United States v. Jackson, 697 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2012)

        (recognizing that right to a speedy trial is nonjurisdictional).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Lunsford’s valid

        appellate waiver. Indeed, Lunsford’s challenge to the execution of his sentence is better

        raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to

        dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the

        motion in part and otherwise affirm.

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

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lunsford 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 Lunsford. We dispense with oral argument because

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4379      Doc: 37         Filed: 02/05/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court

        and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                              AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                              DISMISSED IN PART

                                                    4