Court Opinion

ID: 9402036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-14 21:00:41.001571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.058099
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4531      Doc: 32         Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4531

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROGER JAREA DRAKE, a/k/a Pissy,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cr-00154-6)

        Submitted: August 31, 2022                                        Decided: June 13, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4531      Doc: 32          Filed: 06/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Roger Jarea Drake pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of

        methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and the district court

        sentenced him to 151 months’ imprisonment. Drake now appeals, claiming that the district

        court erred in calculating his criminal history category and the drug quantity attributable to

        him, subjecting him to an improperly elevated Sentencing Guidelines range. He further

        argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing. The Government has

        moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that Drake’s claims are barred by the appeal waiver

        in his plea agreement. For the following reasons, we grant the Government’s motion to

        dismiss the appeal in part, and we affirm in part.

               We will generally enforce an appeal waiver if the record establishes (1) that the

        defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and (2) that the issues

        raised on appeal fall within the waiver’s scope. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168

        (4th Cir. 2005). Upon review of the plea agreement and the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing,

        we conclude that the guilty plea is valid and that Drake knowingly and intelligently waived

        his right to appeal. Moreover, Drake’s challenges to the district court’s calculation of his

        Guidelines range fall squarely within the scope of his waiver and do not constitute one of

        the “extremely narrow exception[s]” to the general enforceability of appeal waivers.

        United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 892 (8th Cir. 2003). Drake’s appeal waiver therefore

        bars his challenge to the calculation of his Guidelines range.

               Drake’s ineffective assistance claim, on the other hand, falls outside the scope of

        his appeal waiver. However, we will not consider ineffective assistance claims on direct

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4531      Doc: 32            Filed: 06/13/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        appeal “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the

        record.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507–08 (4th Cir. 2016). Based on our

        review of the present record, Drake fails to meet this standard, and we therefore decline to

        review this claim on direct appeal.

               Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion in part, dismiss Drake’s challenge

        to the district court’s calculation of his sentence as barred by the appeal waiver, and affirm

        the judgment as to Drake’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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

                                                       3