United States v. Delonte Parker
701 F. App'x 282
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Delonte Gregory Parker pleaded guilty under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) pursuant to a plea agreement that stipulated an agreed sentence range of 60 to 108 months.
- The district court imposed a sentence within that stipulated range.
- Parker signed an appeal waiver in the plea agreement; the Government moved to enforce that waiver and dismiss the appeal.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief raising the single issue of sentence reasonableness but concluding no meritorious issues exist.
- The panel reviewed the Rule 11 transcript and plea agreement and concluded the waiver was knowing and voluntary and the appealed issue fell within its scope.
- The court dismissed the appeal and noted that even absent an explicit waiver, it would decline review of a sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker can appeal his sentence despite an appeal waiver | Parker (via counsel) challenges sentence reasonableness | Government asserts appeal is barred by a valid, knowing, voluntary waiver | Appeal dismissed; waiver enforced |
| Validity of the appellate waiver | Parker implies sentence review remains available | Government argues Rule 11 colloquy and agreement show knowing waiver | Waiver found valid based on plea colloquy and agreement |
| Whether any non-waived meritorious issues exist (per Anders) | Counsel raised none beyond fee for review | Government relied on waiver to preclude review | Court reviewed record and found no meritorious issues outside waiver |
| Whether a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence would be reviewable absent a waiver | (not argued by Parker) | Government and court note precedent limiting review of 11(c)(1)(C) sentences | Court stated it would decline review of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence even without explicit waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217 (4th Cir.) (appeal waiver enforceability depends on validity and scope)
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir.) (defendant may waive appellate rights if knowing and voluntary)
- United States v. Tate, 845 F.3d 571 (4th Cir.) (Rule 11 colloquy questioning supports validity of waiver)
- United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621 (4th Cir.) (courts generally decline to review sentences under Rule 11(c)(1)(C))
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S.) (defense counsel must file brief identifying any non-frivolous issues when seeking withdrawal)