Court Opinion

ID: 9956247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 17:00:58.753535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:07.227920
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4432      Doc: 27         Filed: 03/27/2024      Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4432

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JEROME TERRELL DAVIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (4:20-cr-00512-DCC-2)

        Submitted: March 15, 2024                                         Decided: March 27, 2024

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Howard W. Anderson III, TRULUCK THOMASON LLC, Greenville, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4432      Doc: 27          Filed: 03/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jerome Terrell Davis pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs

        Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951, and conspiracy to possess with intent to

        distribute and distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), 846.

        The district court sentenced Davis to 300 months’ imprisonment followed by three years

        of supervised release. 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 the reasonableness of Davis’ sentence. Although notified of his right to do so,

        Davis has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the

        appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Davis’ plea agreement. For the following reasons,

        we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “We review an appellate 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: 23-4432         Doc: 27       Filed: 03/27/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

               Our review of the record confirms that Davis knowingly and intelligently waived

        his right to appeal, and that his challenge to his 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 sentencing

        challenge raised by 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 Davis’ valid

        appeal waiver. Therefore, although we deny the Government’s motion in part, we affirm

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

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

        If Davis 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 Davis.

               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