United States v. Rhinelander Hernandez
668 F. App'x 19
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Rhinelander Hernandez pled guilty to distribution of heroin under a plea agreement and received a downward variant sentence of 120 months.
- The plea agreement contained a broad appellate-waiver clause: Hernandez waived appeal of conviction and sentence "on any ground whatsoever," except limited carve-outs for statutory maximum exceedance and claims of ineffective assistance.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning the career-offender designation at sentencing.
- Hernandez filed a pro se supplemental brief contesting the career-offender enhancement and alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to using a prior West Virginia conspiracy conviction as a predicate offense.
- The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver; Hernandez opposed dismissal.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed waiver validity de novo, examined the plea colloquy and record, and considered whether the issues fell within the waiver or were preserved for collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appeal waiver | Hernandez contends sentence/challenge should be heard despite waiver | Government argues waiver is valid and bars appeal | Waiver was knowing and intelligent and enforceable; appeal barred |
| Career-offender enhancement | Hernandez argues district court erred in treating prior conspiracy conviction as predicate | Government maintains challenge falls within waived appellate rights | Challenge falls within scope of valid waiver and is waived |
| Ineffective-assistance claim | Hernandez says counsel was ineffective for not objecting to predicate conviction | Government notes INA carve-out but urges dismissal of direct appeal | Claim not waived but not cognizable on direct appeal; should be raised in § 2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (established procedure for counsel to file brief when seeking to withdraw from frivolous appeal)
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard for enforcing appellate waivers when knowing and intelligent)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (consider totality of circumstances to determine whether waiver was knowing and intelligent)
- United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2016) (ineffective-assistance claims generally not cognizable on direct appeal absent conclusive record evidence)