Court Opinion

ID: 9809085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:00:35.448651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:50.978890
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4581      Doc: 35         Filed: 08/30/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4581

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        THOMAS BRANDON RUSS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00507-D-1)

        Submitted: June 8, 2023                                           Decided: August 30, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Christopher S. Edwards, WARD & SMITH, PA, Wilmington, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4581       Doc: 35          Filed: 08/30/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Thomas Brandon Russ pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of

        marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, distribution of marijuana, in violation of

        21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking

        crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Russ to 120

        months’ imprisonment and concurrent supervised release terms of 3 and 5 years. Russ’

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

        there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as issues for review whether the

        magistrate judge erred in the manner he informed Russ of the statutory minimum and

        maximum sentences he faced during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, whether Russ’ prison

        term is reasonable, and whether the discretionary special conditions of supervised release

        present in the judgment match those orally announced by the district court at sentencing.

        Russ was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

        Invoking the appeal waiver in Russ’ plea agreement, the Government moves to dismiss the

        appeal. Russ’ counsel has responded. We grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the

        appeal in part and affirm in part.

               Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights. United

        States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014). Where, as here, the Government seeks

        enforcement of an appeal waiver and there is no claim that it breached its obligations under

        the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver to preclude an appeal of a specific issue if

        the waiver is valid and the issue falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick,

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4581       Doc: 35         Filed: 08/30/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal

        is a question of law we review de novo. Id. The validity of an appeal waiver depends on

        whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. United

        States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018). To determine whether a waiver is

        valid, we examine “the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct

        of the defendant, his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and

        its terms.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally . . . if a district court

        questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy

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

        the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Russ knowingly and

        voluntarily waived his rights to appeal. In the plea agreement, Russ waived the rights to

        appeal his conviction and “whatever sentence is imposed on any ground.” The challenges

        to Russ’ convictions and sentence counsel raises for review fall squarely within the scope

        of Russ’ valid waiver of appellate rights.

               Counsel also questions whether the discretionary special conditions of supervised

        release present in the judgment match those orally announced at sentencing. A district

        court must announce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release at the sentencing

        hearing.   United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-99 (4th Cir. 2020).                 This

        “requirement . . . gives defendants a chance to object to conditions that are not tailored to

        their individual circumstances and ensures that they will be imposed only after

        consideration of the factors set out in [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(d).” Id. at 300. In United States v.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4581         Doc: 35       Filed: 08/30/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        Singletary, we explained that a challenge to discretionary supervised release terms that

        were not orally pronounced at sentencing falls outside the scope of an appeal waiver

        because “the heart of a Rogers claim is that discretionary conditions appearing for the first

        time in a written judgment . . . have not been ‘imposed’ on the defendant.” 984 F.3d 341,

        345 (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the record reflects that the district court orally

        announced the discretionary special conditions of supervised release present in the

        judgment.

               In accordance with Anders, we also have reviewed the remainder of the record in

        this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the

        Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal in part, dismiss the appeal as to counsel’s

        challenges to Russ’ convictions and prison sentence, and affirm in part. This court requires

        that counsel inform Russ, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

        States for further review. If Russ 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 Russ.

               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

                                                      4