US v. Linder, No. 04-4905 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4905 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JASON LANDIS LINDER, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Rodney Peterson, Defendant - Appellant. No. 04-4916 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY TARRATS, a/k/a Skip, a/k/a Ozzy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-04-16) Submitted: March 8, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006 Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia; Steven C. Frucci, STALLINGS & BISCHOFF, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellants. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Darryl J. Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Jason Landis Linder and Jeffrey Tarrats seek to appeal their convictions and sentences to 262 months in prison and five years of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยง 846 (2000). They seek to raise claims challenging their sentences based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because the Appellants waived their appellate rights in their plea agreements, we grant the Government s motions to dismiss on that basis and deny Appellants motions to remand. When appellate the rights, Government and there seeks is no to enforce claim that a the waiver of Government breached the plea agreement, this court will enforce the waiver if the record establishes the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal, and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Blick, 408 An appeal waiver is not knowingly or voluntarily made if the district court fails to specifically question the defendant concerning the waiver provision of the plea agreement during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant did not otherwise understand the full significance of the waiver. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d - 3 - 137, 151 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 461 (2005) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In their plea agreements, Appellants each waived their rights to appeal their convictions and any sentence within the maximum provided in the statute of conviction (or the manner in which that whatsoever. sentence was determined) on . . . any ground Appellants do not contend the district court failed to question them concerning their appellate waivers at their guilty plea hearings or that they did not otherwise understand the full significance of their waivers. Further, they do not assert that their statutory sentences exceeded the maximum or that the Government breached their plea agreements. Linder contends that while he did waive his right to appeal in the plea agreement, the agreement did not contemplate Blakely. However, his argument is foreclosed by our decisions in Johnson, 410 F.3d at 153, and Blick, 408 F.3d at 170. Tarrats contends the Government s failure to object, after the district court inquired at the end of his sentencing hearing whether he still wish[ed] to follow his appellate waiver and Tarrats s counsel stated that Blakely would be the sole reason for an appeal, constituted either a modification of his appellate waiver or a waiver by the Government of its right to enforce the appellate waiver on appeal. agreed upon We disagree. modification of We find there was no mutually the - 4 - waiver of appellate rights contained in Moreover, the Tarrats s knowing Government has and voluntary timely and plea agreement. diligently pursued enforcement of the appellate waiver on appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government s motions to dismiss and deny the Appellants motions to remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 5 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
