United States v. Jerome Davis

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4432 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4432

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROME TERRELL DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (4:20-cr-00512-DCC-2)

Submitted: March 15, 2024 Decided: March 27, 2024

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Howard W. Anderson III, TRULUCK THOMASON LLC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4432 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Terrell Davis pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs

Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951, and conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute and distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), 846.

The district court sentenced Davis to 300 months’ imprisonment followed by three years

of supervised release. 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 the reasonableness of Davis’ sentence. Although notified of his right to do so,

Davis has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the

appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Davis’ plea agreement. For the following reasons,

we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

“We review an appellate 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: 23-4432 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

Our review of the record confirms that Davis knowingly and intelligently waived

his right to appeal, and that his challenge to his 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 sentencing

challenge raised by 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 Davis’ valid

appeal waiver. Therefore, although we deny the Government’s motion in part, we affirm

the remainder of the criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Davis 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 Davis.

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