United States v. Jeter , 358 F. App'x 487 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
XZERIA DAMONT JETER, a/k/a D,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(7:07-cr-01467-HFF-25)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce A. Byrholdt, CHAPMAN, BYRHOLDT & YON, LLP, Anderson, South
Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, III, United States
Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Xzeria Damont Jeter of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Based on
the drug quantity found by the jury and an enhancement filed by
the Government, Jeter faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 240
months’ imprisonment. However, in exchange for Jeter’s waiver
of his appellate rights, the Government withdrew the enhancement
and Jeter consequently received a significantly lower sentence
of 121 months’ imprisonment. Jeter now appeals, arguing that at
trial the Government failed to disclose certain evidence, in
violation of United States v. Brady, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The
Government responds that the appellate waiver should be enforced
and this appeal dismissed. We agree.
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, the waiver is both valid and enforceable.
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005);
United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991).
The question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to
2
appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United
States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Jeter knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal.
Because Jeter’s valid and enforceable waiver of appellate rights
precludes review of his conviction issue, 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