Court Opinion

ID: 9911809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:00:37.809564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:45.534268
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4350      Doc: 45         Filed: 12/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4350

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SAQUAN LANARD ROUSE, a/k/a SQ, a/k/a Playdoe,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:22-cr-00075-TDS-5)

        Submitted: December 14, 2023                                Decided: December 19, 2023

        Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Ryan M. Gaylord, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4350      Doc: 45         Filed: 12/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Saquan Lanard Rouse seeks to appeal his convictions and the 195-month sentence

        imposed following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Racketeer

        Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d),

        and attempted murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5).

        Rouse’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

        asserting there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Rouse’s guilty

        plea is valid and whether the downward-variant sentence is reasonable. Rouse did not file

        a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his right to do so. The Government has

        moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Rouse’s waiver of the right to appeal included in

        the plea agreement.

               Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and Rouse has

        not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the

        issues raised on appeal fall within its scope. United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608

        (4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Rouse knowingly

        and intelligently waived his right to appeal and that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

        Rouse’s challenge to his sentence falls squarely within the waiver’s scope, and we have

        reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no potentially

        meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant

        the Government’s motion to dismiss Rouse’s appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s

        scope. We affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4350      Doc: 45          Filed: 12/19/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               This court requires that counsel inform Rouse, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Rouse 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 Rouse. 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 IN PART,
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      3