The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-4528•United States of America v. Jeremy Cline
21-4528Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 28, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4528
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY CLINE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cr-00074-M-3)
Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 28, 2022
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeremy Cline pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to
possess with the intent to distribute and distribution of 500 grams or more of a mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district
court imposed a 288-month sentence, which was below the Sentencing Guidelines range
of 360 months to life imprisonment. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Cline’s sentence is substantively
reasonable. Cline did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do
so. The Government moves to dismiss this appeal as barred by the appellate waiver
contained in Cline’s plea agreement. For the following reasons, we dismiss in part and
affirm in part.
Appellate counsel questions the reasonableness of Cline’s sentence in light of the
penalties of the quantities of methamphetamines involved under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (2018) and offense conduct fueled by Cline’s near lifelong
drug addiction and related mental health issues. Where, as here, the Government seeks to
enforce an appellate waiver and the defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea
agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue raised on appeal falls
within the waiver’s scope. United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018).
Cline does not contest that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, see
-- 2 of 3 --
3
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010), and our de novo review of
the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Cline’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary,
and the waiver is valid and enforceable. See United States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 678
(4th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review). Moreover, Cline’s challenge to the
reasonableness of his sentence falls squarely within the waiver’s scope.
Accordingly, we grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss
Cline’s appeal of his sentence, and we affirm the district court’s judgment in all other
respects. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and
have found no meritorious grounds for appeal that fall outside the scope of the waiver.
This court requires that counsel inform Cline, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cline 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 Cline.
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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.