Court Opinion

ID: 9376531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 22:00:56.277527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.461996
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4140      Doc: 47         Filed: 03/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4140

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMAL MOHAMMAD ELEIDY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00133-FL-1)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: March 1, 2023

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

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC,
        Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
        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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4140        Doc: 47         Filed: 03/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamal Mohammad Eleidy pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1), (2), 1349. The

        district court sentenced Eleidy to 109 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised

        release with various conditions. On appeal, Eleidy’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 that are not precluded by the appeal waiver in Eleidy’s plea agreement, but

        questioning whether the magistrate judge erred in accepting Eleidy’s guilty plea ∗ and

        whether Eleidy’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Eleidy has filed a pro se brief, as

        supplemented, also challenging the substantive reasonableness of his sentence and

        contesting the procedural reasonableness of his sentence based on the district court’s

        application of certain sentencing enhancements. The Government has moved to dismiss

        the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Eleidy’s plea agreement. We deny the

        Government’s motion to dismiss, affirm Eleidy’s conviction, vacate his sentence, and

        remand for resentencing.

               “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 the validity of an appeal waiver de

        novo. See id. “A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to

               ∗
                   Eleidy consented to proceed before a magistrate judge for the plea hearing.

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4140      Doc: 47          Filed: 03/01/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        waive the right to appeal.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, if the district court fully questions a

        defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy that complies

        with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the record shows that the defendant understood the waiver’s

        significance, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d

        358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018). Eleidy’s appeal waiver does not preclude our review of the

        validity of his guilty plea. Id. at 364. Our review of the record confirms that the magistrate

        judge conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy, that Eleidy’s guilty plea was knowing and

        voluntary, and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. We therefore

        affirm Eleidy’s conviction.

               Our review pursuant to Anders revealed a meritorious ground for appeal that falls

        outside the scope of Eleidy’s appeal waiver. While the district court announced some

        conditions of supervised release at sentencing, the amended written judgment contained

        multiple discretionary conditions of supervised release that were not announced at

        sentencing, including 13 standard conditions and two additional standard conditions. Thus,

        the district court violated the rule that “all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release

        must be announced at a defendant’s sentencing hearing.” United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d

        291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020). This is reversible error under de novo review, id. at 295-96, and

        the appeal waiver in Eleidy’s plea agreement does not bar our review, United States v.

        Singletary, 984 F.3d 342, 344-45 (4th Cir. 2021).

               When the district court fails to announce discretionary conditions of supervised

        release that are later included in the written judgment, the defendant’s sentence must be

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4140         Doc: 47      Filed: 03/01/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        vacated in its entirety and remanded for resentencing. See id. at 346 & n.4. Thus, we have

        no occasion to consider any additional challenges to Eleidy’s sentence, including those

        raised in counsel’s Anders brief and Eleidy’s pro se brief, or whether such challenges are

        barred by the appeal waiver.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal other than the Rogers error. Therefore, we deny

        the Government’s motion to dismiss, affirm Eleidy’s conviction, vacate his sentence

        pursuant to Rogers and Singletary, and remand for resentencing. This court requires that

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

        States for further review. If Eleidy 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 Eleidy.

               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,
                                                                               VACATED IN PART,
                                                                                AND REMANDED

                                                     4