USCA4 Appeal: 22-4150 Doc: 41 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAMADHAN JAABIR JUSTICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:19-cr-00406-BO-1)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: David Q. Burgess, DAVID BURGESS LAW, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4150 Doc: 41 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Ramadhan Jaabir Justice pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs
Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance
of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court
sentenced Justice to a total term of 130 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in
sentencing Justice on the § 924(c) count based on its conclusion that Hobbs Act robbery
was categorically a crime of violence. In a pro se supplemental brief, Justice similarly
argues that Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence. The Government moves to
dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Justice’s plea agreement. We affirm in
part and dismiss in part.
“We review an [appeal] waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is
enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls
within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant enters
it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality
of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a defendant
regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the
record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the
waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4150 Doc: 41 Filed: 01/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
Our review of the record confirms that Justice was competent to enter a guilty plea,
that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that his challenge to his
firearm conviction and sentence falls squarely within the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal
as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, including the challenges raised by Justice and
Anders counsel.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Justice’s valid
appeal waiver. We therefore deny the Government’s motion in part and affirm the
remainder of the criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Justice, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
If Justice 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 Justice.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3