United States v. Jasper Mackey, Jr.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-4421 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/10/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4421
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASPER B. MACKEY, JR., a/k/a Jasper Mackey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cr-00341-RJC-DCK-1)
Submitted: January 24, 2022 Decided: February 10, 2022
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Matthew C. Joseph, LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN BUTLER, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Andrew Murray, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4421 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/10/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jasper B. Mackey, Jr., appeals the 132-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea to drug and firearm offenses. On appeal, the parties dispute whether the Government
breached the plea agreement. In addition, the Government seeks to invoke the appeal
waiver provision contained in the agreement. We affirm.
“[A] defendant’s waiver of appellate rights cannot foreclose an argument that the
government breached its obligations under the plea agreement.” United States v. Tate, 845
F.3d 571, 574 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this reason, we deny
the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal based on Mackey’s appeal waiver.
Nevertheless, upon review of the record, we discern no error in the district court’s
determination that Mackey failed to discharge his burden of establishing a breach of the
plea agreement. See United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000) (providing
standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
2