UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00074-F-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Dominique Alexander Jones pled guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute fifty
grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) (2006). Jones now seeks to appeal his conviction
and sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as
barred by Jones’s waiver of the right to appeal included in his
plea agreement. Our reading of the waiver convinces us that
Jones may proceed with his challenge to his conviction, but that
his challenges to the validity of his sentence are waived.
Therefore, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss as to the
sentencing issues and deny it as to Jones’s challenge to his
guilty plea.
Jones first argues that his conviction is invalid
because his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Prior to
accepting a guilty plea, a district court must inform the
defendant of, and determine that the defendant comprehends, the
nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty, any
mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty he
faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty.
United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
The court must also determine whether there is a factual basis
for the plea. Id. at 120. In the absence of a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of a
2
guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error.
See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.
2002).
Our review of the record reveals that the district
court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in
accepting Jones’s plea. Furthermore, we find no merit in
Jones’s argument that Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(M) required the
district court to provide him with additional information
regarding his potential sentence before accepting his plea.
Accordingly, we find that Jones’s plea was knowing and voluntary
and affirm his conviction.
Jones also asserts that the sentencing issues he seeks
to raise on appeal are not barred by the terms of his waiver of
appellate rights. Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may
waive his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006).
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). A
valid waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue
is within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Jones does not contest the
validity of his waiver, and we find that the sentencing issues
he seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within the scope of
his waiver of appellate rights. Additionally, we find no merit
in his contention that the wording of his waiver is ambiguous or
subject to multiple interpretations. Therefore, we find that
3
the sentencing issues Jones seeks to raise on appeal are barred
by the terms of his waiver of appellate rights.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part and affirm
Jones’s conviction. 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
4