United States v. James Bennett, Jr.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4459 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES BERNARD BENNETT, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Meyers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:23-cr-00302-M-RN-1) Submitted: February 20, 2025 Decided: February 25, 2025 Before AGEE, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam. ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4459 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: James Bernard Bennett, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Bennett within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to a total of 114 months’ imprisonment. Bennett’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Bennett’s plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Bennet’s waiver of appellate rights does not prevent our review of the validity of the plea itself. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). We therefore deny, in part, the Government’s motion to dismiss and review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review); see also Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013) (describing plain error standard). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading, and the applicable maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court also must ensure that the plea was voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4459 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 4 R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Here, the district court conducted a thorough and complete Rule 11 hearing. We therefore conclude that Bennett entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that a factual basis supported the plea. With respect to Bennett’s waiver of his appellate rights, “[w]e review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is enforceable” and “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) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record confirms that, with limited exceptions not applicable here, Bennett knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issue counsel raises in the Anders brief falls squarely within the scope of the waiver. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm in the district court’s judgment, grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part, and dismiss the appeal of all issues within the scope of the appellate waiver. This court requires that counsel inform Bennett, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4459 Doc: 25 Filed: 02/25/2025 Pg: 4 of 4 further review. If Bennett 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 Bennett. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 4