United States v. Jerry Anderson
708 F. App'x 770
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jerry Anderson pleaded guilty to bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) and was sentenced to 25 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
- The district court ordered the supervised-release term to run consecutively to a separate 3-year supervised-release term imposed in another case sentenced the same day.
- Anderson signed a plea agreement containing an appellate waiver; he appealed, claiming (pro se) that the Government breached the plea agreement and (through counsel) that the Rule 11 plea colloquy was deficient and that the supervised-release terms should not be consecutive.
- The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate-waiver in the plea agreement.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed: (1) validity and enforceability of the appeal waiver, (2) adequacy of the Rule 11 plea colloquy (constitutional claim outside waiver), and (3) legality of imposing consecutive supervised-release terms (not waivable by plea agreement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of appellate waiver | Gov: waiver is valid; appeal should be dismissed | Anderson: Government breached plea, so waiver unenforceable | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; Anderson failed to prove Government breach; waiver enforced for claims within its scope |
| Adequacy of Rule 11 plea colloquy (constitutional challenge) | Anderson: plea not knowing/voluntary; Rule 11 hearing deficient | Gov: plea valid; waived appeal except constitutional challenge | Court applied plain-error review; Rule 11 substantially complied; plea was valid; convictions affirmed |
| Government breach of plea agreement | Anderson (pro se): Government breached plea | Gov: no breach occurred | Anderson failed to meet preponderance burden to show breach; claim rejected |
| Consecutive supervised-release terms | Anderson: district court exceeded statutory authority by ordering consecutive terms | Gov: moved to dismiss based on waiver but conceded this issue falls outside waiver | § 3624(e) mandates supervised release run concurrently; ordering consecutive terms was plain error — judgment vacated and remanded to correct concurrent term |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when counsel files brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues)
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for enforcing appellate waivers)
- United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (knowing and intelligent waiver inquiry)
- United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2012) (scope of appeal waiver enforcement)
- United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir. 2006) (government breach negates waiver)
- United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2000) (burden on defendant to prove government breach)
- United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114 (4th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 substantial compliance standard)
- United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing errors)
- United States v. Ordonez, [citation="305 F. App'x 980"] (4th Cir. 2009) (statute requires supervised release run concurrently; consecutive order erroneous)