Jakeem Molik-Artrell Bennett pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced to 110 months in prison, which represented the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, asserting that there were no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal but raising a question regarding the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal, citing the appeal waiver Bennett signed as part of his plea agreement. Bennett did not file a pro se supplemental brief despite having the opportunity to do so.
The Fourth Circuit began by addressing the Government's motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver. The court noted that defendants may validly waive their right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 if the waiver is entered knowingly and intelligently. The court reviewed the validity of the waiver de novo, looking to the totality of the circumstances, including Bennett's experience, conduct, educational background, and knowledge of the plea agreement. The court found that the district court had questioned Bennett regarding the waiver during the Rule 11 colloquy and that the record indicated Bennett understood the full significance of the waiver. Consequently, the court concluded that Bennett knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and understood the waiver. The court granted the Government's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the appeal for all issues falling within the scope of the broad waiver. In accordance with its obligations under Anders, the court reviewed the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of the waiver and found none. Therefore, the court affirmed the criminal judgment in part.
The criminal judgment stands, and Bennett's conviction and sentence are upheld. The decision reinforces the enforceability of appeal waivers in plea agreements when the defendant understands the terms during the Rule 11 colloquy. Counsel is now required to inform Bennett in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bennett requests a petition but counsel believes it would be frivolous, counsel may move to withdraw from representation, provided they serve a copy of the motion on Bennett.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download