United States v. Montrel Rhone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-4034
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4034 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MONTREL DEMON RHONE, a/k/a Killa,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00380-D-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2025 Decided: August 19, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Daniel M. Blau, DANIEL M. BLAU, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4034 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Montrel Demon Rhone seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment after pleading

guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin,

methamphetamine, fentanyl, and a fentanyl analogue, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846;

distribution of a fentanyl analogue, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession

of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A). On appeal, Rhone’s attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

questioning whether the district court erred in finding the drug quantity and applying a role

enhancement at sentencing, and whether his trial counsel was ineffective. The Government

has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Rhone’s appeal waiver. Rhone has filed a

pro se supplemental brief addressing his claim that he received ineffective assistance by

trial counsel. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

“We have consistently held that appellate waivers in valid plea agreements are

enforceable.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). “Plea agreements

are grounded in contract law, and as with any contract, each party is entitled to receive the

benefit of his bargain.” United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal

quotation marks omitted). But, there is “a ‘narrow class of claims that we have allowed a

defendant to raise on direct appeal despite a general waiver of appellate rights.’” United

States v. Moran, 70 F.4th 797, 802 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023).

“For example, [n]o appeal waiver . . . can bar a defendant’s right to challenge his

sentence as outside a statutorily prescribed maximum or based on a constitutionally

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4034 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

impermissible factor such as race.” United States v. Toebbe, 85 F.4th 190, 202 (4th Cir.

2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In such circumstances, we have explained, ‘the

errors allegedly committed by the district courts were errors that the defendants could not

have reasonably contemplated when the plea agreements were executed.’” Id. Moreover,

“the existence of such a waiver does not bar our review of the validity of the guilty plea

and plea waiver.” United States v. Taylor-Sanders, 88 F.4th 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2023).

We review the validity and effect of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v.

Lubkin, 122 F.4th 522, 526 (4th Cir. 2024). “Where ‘there is no claim that the United

States breached its obligations under the plea agreement,’ we enforce an appeal waiver if

the record shows (1) ‘that the waiver is valid’ and (2) ‘that the issue being appealed is

within the scope of the waiver.’” Id. “An appeal waiver is valid ‘if the defendant’s

agreement to the waiver was knowing and intelligent.’” Id. “We look at the ‘totality of

the circumstances,’ including the clarity of the waiver’s text and ‘whether the district court

sufficiently explained the waiver’ at the defendant’s ‘plea colloquy.’” Id. “We use

traditional principles of contract law to determine whether an issue falls within the scope

of a valid waiver.” United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Rhone’s appeal waiver is valid,

and the sentencing claim asserted in the Anders brief falls within the scope of the waiver.

In accordance with Anders, we have also reviewed the ineffective assistance claim and the

entire record for any potentially meritorious issues that fall outside the appeal waiver and

have found none. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are typically “litigated in the

first instance in the district court, the forum best suited to developing the facts necessary

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4034 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/19/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

to determining the adequacy of representation,” Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500,

505 (2003), but we will consider such claims “on direct review where the ineffectiveness

of counsel ‘conclusively appears in the trial record itself,’” United States v. Freeman, 24

F.4th 320, 331 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Because no ineffective assistance of counsel

conclusively appears in the trial record itself, we decline to consider this issue on direct

appeal. Rhone should raise his claim, if at all, in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal in part and

affirm the district court’s judgment in part. This court requires that counsel inform Rhone,

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

If Rhone requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 Rhone. 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART