United States v. James Roberts ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4453 Doc: 44 Filed: 11/20/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4453
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES HENRY ROBERTS, a/k/a Bub,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00137-JRR-22)
Submitted: October 30, 2024 Decided: November 20, 2024
Before WILKINSON, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Robin M. Earnest, EARNEST ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States Attorney, John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4453 Doc: 44 Filed: 11/20/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
James Henry Roberts pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment in accordance with the
agreed-upon sentence in the plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). Counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal and that Roberts’s appeal waiver is valid, but this
court should consider whether Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines should be
applied to Roberts’s sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Roberts has not
filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government moves to dismiss Roberts’s appeal
pursuant to the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in
part.
We review an appellate waiver de novo and “‘[w]hen the government seeks to
enforce an appeal waiver and has not breached the plea agreement, we 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) (quoting United States v.
Beck, 957 F.3d 440, 445 (4th Cir. 2020)). “A ‘valid’ appeal waiver is one entered by the
defendant knowingly and intelligently, a determination that [this Court] make[s] by
considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id. (quoting United States v. Thornsbury,
670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012)). “When a district court questions a defendant during a
Rule 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant
understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid.”
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4453 Doc: 44 Filed: 11/20/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Id. “An important factor in such an evaluation is whether the district court sufficiently
explained the waiver to the defendant during the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
plea colloquy.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). 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).
Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Rule 11 hearing, confirms that Roberts knowingly and intelligently waived his right to
appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We
therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable.
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 Roberts’s valid
appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and
dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and
otherwise affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Roberts, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Roberts 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 Roberts. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
3