Court Opinion

ID: 9837959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:24.385508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:38.720283
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4233      Doc: 18         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4233

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SAQUON DEVON DOZIER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:21-cr-00251-WO-3)

        Submitted: July 31, 2023                                     Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Nicole Royer DuPre, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4233      Doc: 18          Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Saquon Devon Dozier seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence after pleading

        guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, Dozier’s attorney has filed a brief

        under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no nonfrivolous

        grounds for appeal but raising the issues of whether his guilty plea and appeal waiver were

        knowing and voluntary, and whether his sentence is reasonable. The Government has

        moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Dozier’s appeal waiver. Dozier was notified of

        his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal.

               “In order for a guilty plea to be valid, the Constitution imposes ‘the minimum

        requirement that [the] plea be the voluntary expression of [the defendant’s] own choice.’”

        United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010). “It must reflect a voluntary

        and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Id.

        (internal quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating the constitutional validity of a guilty

        plea, courts look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding [it], granting the

        defendant’s solemn declaration of guilt a presumption of truthfulness.” Id. (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure “governs

        the duty of the trial judge before accepting a guilty plea.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S.

        238, 243 n.5 (1969); United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 244 (4th Cir. 2021).

               Rule 11 “requires a judge to address a defendant about to enter a plea of guilty, to

        ensure that he understands the law of his crime in relation to the facts of his case, as well

        as his rights as a criminal defendant.” United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 62 (2002). “The

        court also must determine that the plea is voluntary and that there is a factual basis for the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4233      Doc: 18         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        plea.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). We review the entire

        record to evaluate a challenge to the validity of a plea. See Greer v. United States, 141 S.

        Ct. 2090, 2098 (2021); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002); United States v.

        Heyward, 42 F.4th 460, 467 (4th Cir. 2022). When a defendant appeals the validity of a

        guilty plea but did not preserve the challenge in the district court, this Court reviews for

        plain error. United States v. Miller, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 4673749, at *4 (4th Cir. July

        21, 2023); United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015).

               “We have consistently held that appellate waivers in valid plea agreements are

        enforceable.” Soloff, 993 F.3d at 243. “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal

        waiver and has not breached the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid

        and if the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver.” United States v.

        Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review

        an appeal waiver de novo to determine whether it is enforceable. Id.

               “A ‘valid’ appeal waiver is one entered by the defendant knowingly and

        intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality of the

        circumstances.” Id. “When a district court questions a defendant during a Rule 11 hearing

        regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant understood the import

        of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid.” Id. “[W]e have

        explained that ‘a district court’s failure to strictly abide by Rule 11 will not alone render

        an appellate waiver unenforceable.’” Soloff, 993 F.3d at 244. “Consistent with Rule 11’s

        harmless error provision, ‘[f]orm should not prevail over substance’ in evaluating the

        enforceability of appellate waiver provisions.” Id.

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4233       Doc: 18         Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

               “Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and as with any contract, each party

        is entitled to receive the benefit of his bargain.” United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287

        (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). But, “[a] defendant who waives his

        right to appeal a plea ‘retains the right to obtain appellate review of his sentence on certain

        limited grounds.’” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2018). “An appeal

        waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a sentence ‘based on a

        constitutionally impermissible factor’ or ‘a sentence imposed in excess of the maximum

        penalty provided by statute.’” United States v. Cornette, 932 F.3d 204, 209 (4th Cir. 2019).

        Moreover, “even valid appeal waivers do not bar claims that a factual basis is insufficient

        to support a guilty plea.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 364. “The rationale for these exceptions is

        that they present claims that if true, would render the plea itself unknowing or involuntary.”

        Id. at 363; see also United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016) (noting this

        Court will not enforce an appeal waiver if doing so would result in a miscarriage of justice,

        and ruling that cognizable claim of actual innocence fell outside scope of waiver).

               Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Dozier has not shown any plain

        error by the district court in accepting his guilty plea affecting his substantial rights, and

        his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We further conclude that Dozier knowingly

        and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and the issues raised

        on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver. We have also reviewed the record for any

        potentially meritorious issues that might fall outside the waiver and have found none.

               Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. This court

        requires that counsel inform Dozier, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4233      Doc: 18        Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 5 of 5

        of the United States for further review. If Dozier 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 Dozier. 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.

                                                                                    DISMISSED

                                                   5