United States of America v. Joshua Jessie White

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4548
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA JESSIE WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cr-00013-TSK-MJA-1)
Submitted: December 12, 2022 Decided: December 15, 2022
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Harry A. Smith III, JORY & SMITH, L.C., Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellant. Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Jessie White seeks to appeal the 160-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). White’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court abused its discretion
by applying a four-level enhancement when calculating White’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range. White did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his
right to do so. After we directed the Government to file a response brief, it moved to
dismiss the appeal as barred by White’s waiver of the right to appeal included in the plea
agreement.
Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and White 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. Boutcher, 998 F.3d
603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). White does not contest that he knowingly and intelligently
waived his right to appeal, see United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010),
and our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the waiver is valid and
enforceable. White’s challenge to the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range falls
squarely within the waiver’s scope, and we have reviewed the record in accordance with
Anders and have identified no potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside the
scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss White’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope and affirm the remainder of the district
court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform White, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If White 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 White. 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 --