UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAMBREH JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00083-RDB-1)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William L. Welch, III, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Ayn
Brigoli Ducao, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kambreh Jones pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with
intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court
sentenced Jones to 180 months’ imprisonment, and Jones now
appeals.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but questioning the drug quantity attributed to
Jones for sentencing purposes. Jones filed a pro se
supplemental brief also challenging the drug quantity for which
he was held responsible.
The Government seeks to enforce the appellate waiver
provision of the plea agreement, and has moved to dismiss Jones’
appeal in part. In response, Jones’ counsel acknowledges the
appeal waiver but asserts that Jones nevertheless opposes the
motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive
his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United
States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court
reviews the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will
enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue on appeal is
2
within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
An appeal waiver is valid if “the defendant knowingly
and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.” Id. at
169. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent,
this court examines “the totality of the circumstances,
including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as
the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the
terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278
F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a
sentencing range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment and, as long
as the court accepted the plea agreement, Jones agreed to waive
his right to appeal any sentence within the stipulated range.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Jones
knowingly and intelligently entered into the plea agreement and
that his waiver of appellate rights was similarly knowing and
intelligent. Because Jones’ sentence of imprisonment falls
within the stipulated range, we find that he has waived his
right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss Jones’ appeal
of his sentence.
3
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ conviction, grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal of
Jones’ sentence. We deny Jones’ pro se request to hold his
appeal in abeyance and deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This
court requires that counsel inform Jones, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Jones 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 Jones. 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