UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARQUETTE TERRELL JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00015-F-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2011 Decided: June 14, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George Edward Bell Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marquette Terrell Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a
written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). The district court
sentenced Jones to 115 months in prison. Jones now appeals,
contending that his sentence is unreasonable. His attorney has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no
meritorious issues for review. Jones was advised of his right
to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not filed such a
brief. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal of the
sentence on the basis of a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision
in Jones’ plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in
part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if the
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter,
492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance
with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th
Cir. 2005). The question of whether a defendant validly waived
his right to appeal is a question of law that we review de novo.
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
2
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Jones
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence, with the exception of a claim that his sentence is
above the advisory Guidelines range. We note that the waiver
provision was set forth in a separate paragraph of the plea
agreement, which Jones signed. Further, he was fully questioned
at the properly conducted Rule 11 hearing about the appeal
waiver. Accordingly, the waiver is valid. Jones’ claim on
appeal that his sentence is unreasonable because the district
court did not consider one argument made at sentencing falls
within the scope of the waiver, * and we accordingly grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss this portion of the appeal.
With respect to Jones’ conviction, our review of the
transcript of the plea colloquy convinces us that the district
court complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in
accepting Jones’ guilty plea. The court ensured that the plea
was voluntary, knowing, and supported by an independent factual
basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20
(4th Cir. 1991). We therefore affirm the conviction.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record for meritorious issues and have found none. We therefore
*
Jones was sentenced within his advisory Guidelines range
of 110-120 months.
3
affirm Jones’ conviction and dismiss his appeal of his sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If the client 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 was served on the client. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4