Court Opinion

ID: 9364989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:23.897105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.878458
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4150      Doc: 41         Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4150

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RAMADHAN JAABIR JUSTICE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:19-cr-00406-BO-1)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: David Q. Burgess, DAVID BURGESS LAW, PC, Charlotte, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4150      Doc: 41          Filed: 01/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ramadhan Jaabir Justice pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs

        Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance

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

        sentenced Justice to a total term of 130 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 the district court erred in

        sentencing Justice on the § 924(c) count based on its conclusion that Hobbs Act robbery

        was categorically a crime of violence. In a pro se supplemental brief, Justice similarly

        argues that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence. The Government moves to

        dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Justice’s plea agreement. We affirm in

        part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an [appeal] waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “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). An appeal 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).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4150         Doc: 41      Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Our review of the record confirms that Justice was competent to enter a guilty plea,

        that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that his challenge to his

        firearm conviction and sentence falls squarely within the scope of the appeal waiver.

        Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal

        as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, including the challenges raised by Justice and

        Anders counsel.

               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 Justice’s valid

        appeal waiver. We therefore deny the Government’s motion in part and affirm the

        remainder of the criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Justice, in

        writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

        If Justice 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 Justice.

               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.

                                                                               AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART

                                                     3