Court Opinion

ID: 9831311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:31.722117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:21.440594
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4713      Doc: 33         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4713

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES MELVIN FEREBEE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00021-D-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Helen Celeste Smith, Apex, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4713       Doc: 33        Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

                 James Melvin Ferebee pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and

        possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).      The district court sentenced Ferebee to 288 months’

        imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. In Ferebee’s first appeal, this court

        affirmed his convictions, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing in light of

        United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Singletary,

        984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021). United States v. Ferebee, No. 19-4184 (4th Cir. Feb. 9,

        2022).     At resentencing on remand, the district court calculated Ferebee’s advisory

        imprisonment and supervised release ranges under the Sentencing Guidelines at 235 to 292

        months and 1 to 3 years, respectively, and sentenced him to 235 months’ imprisonment

        and 3 years of supervised release. In this appeal from the amended criminal judgment,

        Ferebee’s 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 raising as issues for review

        whether Ferebee’s prison term is unreasonable. Ferebee has filed a pro se supplemental

        brief raising challenges to the reasonableness of his sentence. Invoking the appeal waiver

        in Ferebee’s plea agreement, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal. Ferebee’s

        counsel has filed a response to the motion.

                 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

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4713       Doc: 33          Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        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. Soloff,

        993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). 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 [Fed. R. Crim. P.]

        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 Ferebee knowingly and

        voluntarily waived his rights to appeal. Ferebee waived the rights to appeal his convictions

        and “whatever sentence is imposed on any ground” and reserved only the rights to appeal

        from a sentence exceeding the applicable advisory Guidelines range established at

        sentencing or to raise appellate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial

        misconduct not known to him at the time of his guilty plea. The challenges to Ferebee’s

        sentence that counsel and Ferebee raise fall squarely within the scope of Ferebee’s valid

        waiver of appellate rights.

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4713       Doc: 33         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

               However, in imposing the discretionary conditions of Ferebee’s supervised release

        at sentencing, the district court orally ordered him to support his children, while the written

        judgment requires that he support his dependents. A district court must announce all

        nonmandatory conditions of supervised release at the sentencing hearing. Rogers, 961 F.3d

        at 296-99. 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

        Singletary, this court explained that a challenge to discretionary supervised release

        conditions 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 at 345.

               An inconsistency between the descriptions of a condition of supervision announced

        at sentencing and in the written judgment may be reversible Rogers error where the

        Government fails to explain the alleged inconsistency. See United States v. Cisson,

        33 F.4th 185, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2022). However, in the context of this record, which reflects

        no dependents other than Ferebee’s children, it is clear the district court’s intention was to

        require Ferebee to support his children. “The proper remedy is for the [d]istrict [c]ourt to

        correct the written judgment so that it conforms with the sentencing court’s oral

        pronouncements.” United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d 27, 29 n.1 (4th Cir. 1965).

               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

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4713         Doc: 33        Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal and remand to the district court with

        instructions to correct the written judgment to conform with the district court’s oral

        pronouncement that Ferebee support his children, leaving the sentence, including the

        remaining conditions of supervised release, undisturbed. This court requires that counsel

        inform Ferebee, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States

        for further review. If Ferebee 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 Ferebee. ∗

               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 AND REMANDED

               ∗
                Ferebee’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw from representation. We deny
        this motion without prejudice to counsel’s ability to refile it after discharging her obligation
        to inform Ferebee of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review.

                                                       5