United States v. Mark Skeete

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4589 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4589
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ANTHONY SKEETE, a/k/a Mark Skeete, a/k/a Mark Anthony Brown, Jr.,
a/k/a Mark Brown, Jr., a/k/a Clean Up, a/k/a Hakeem,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. David J. Novak, District Judge. (4:19-cr-00062-DJN-DEM-1)
Submitted: April 17, 2023 Decided: April 19, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel J. Honold, Alexandria,
Virginia, Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4589 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Skeete pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to two counts of
use of a firearm resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), and was sentenced to
two consecutive life terms to be followed by five years’ supervised release. Skeete
appealed and, after conducting a review in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), we granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as to all issues
within the scope of the appeal waiver contained in Skeete’s plea agreement and affirmed
Skeete’s convictions. United States v. Skeete, No. 21-4676, 2022 WL 2355512, *1-2 (4th
Cir. June 30, 2022) (“Skeete I”). Having determined that the district court did not announce
at sentencing all of the discretionary terms of Skeete’s supervised release, we denied the
Government’s motion to dismiss, in part, vacated Skeete’s sentence, and remanded for
resentencing. Id. at *2. See United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 345-47 & n.4 (4th
Cir. 2021).
The district court conducted a full resentencing on remand, again sentencing Skeete
to two consecutive life terms to be followed by five years’ supervised release. During the
hearing, the district court expressly announced all discretionary supervised release
conditions that it later included in the amended written criminal judgment. Skeete again
appealed and, in an Anders brief, counsel concedes there are no meritorious issues for
appeal, but asserts that Skeete’s life sentences are substantively unreasonable and that the
district court erroneously denied Skeete’s request for a downward variance. Skeete was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. The
Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, again invoking the appeal waiver in
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4589 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
Skeete’s plea agreement. We grant the motion to dismiss in part, dismiss the appeal as to
all issues within the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm in part.
After a thorough review of the record in Skeete I, we found that Skeete knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and, thus, found the appeal waiver to be valid
and enforceable. 2022 WL 2355512, at *1. This holding became “the law of the case” and
“continue[s] to govern the same issue[]” here. United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655,
661 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). As Skeete’s appellate waiver bars
this court’s review of any sentence within the statutory maximum of life in prison, see 28
U.S.C. § 924(j), and since Skeete challenges only his sentence on this appeal, we grant in
part the Government’s motion to dismiss, see United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243
(4th Cir. 2021) (“Where the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and the
defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce a valid appeal
waiver where the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record on remand and have found
no meritorious grounds that are beyond the scope of Skeete’s valid appeal waiver. We
therefore grant, in part, the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to
all issues within the waiver’s scope and affirm, in part. This court requires that counsel
inform Skeete, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Skeete 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 Skeete.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4589 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/19/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
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
4