UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4123
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOKARI LEE BARNETT,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00005-JPB-DJJ-1)
Submitted: October 20, 2011 Decided: November 10, 2011
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James S. Hewes, Portland, Maine, for Appellant. William J.
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jokari Lee Barnett pleaded guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to distribution of crack cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court
sentenced Barnett to 132 months’ imprisonment. Barnett appeals,
arguing that the Government breached the terms of the plea
agreement and that the district court erred in both applying a
two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and in
declining to apply a three-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. Further, Barnett argues that his rights under
the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment were violated
because he was punished twice for the same criminal conduct.
The Government, in its response, asserts that Barnett waived his
appellate rights and that his claims are within the scope of the
waiver. In light of the waiver, the Government urges dismissal
of this appeal.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
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. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
(4th Cir. 2005). The question of whether a defendant validly
2
waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court
reviews de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that Barnett
knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
sentence, and that the magistrate judge fully questioned Barnett
regarding the appeal waiver at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearings.
Accordingly, the waiver is valid. We further find that the
Government did not breach the plea agreement. Because Barnett’s
challenges to the calculation of his sentence and his double
jeopardy claim fall within the waiver’s scope, we dismiss the
appeal.
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.
DISMISSED
3