US v. Jamal Rickenbacker, No. 10-4228 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4228 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAL SIDDQ RICKENBACKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08cr-00536-RWT-1) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. A.D. Martin, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY D. MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Stacy Dawson Belf, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamal Siddq Rickenbacker pled guilty to distribution of cocaine felon. base and possession of a firearm by a convicted He was sentenced within his advisory Guidelines range to 168 months in prison. On appeal, his attorney has filed a brief pursuant v. to Anders California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there were no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the Government acted in bad faith by moving for only a one-level departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ยง 5K1.1 (2009). Although informed of his right to do so, Rickenbacker has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Government has moved to dismiss the appeal The based on Rickenbacker s waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement. We grant the motion in part and dismiss the appeal with regard to Rickenbacker s sentence. After a review of the record under Anders, we affirm Rickenbacker s convictions. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal. Cir. 1990). intelligent United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Any such waiver must be made by a knowing and decision to forgo the right to appeal. United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995). Whether a defendant has effectively waived his right to appeal is an issue of law we review de novo. 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). 2 United States v. Marin, The conformed to specifically district the court s dictates addressed of the plea colloquy Fed. R. appellate was Crim. thorough, P. waiver. 11, and Moreover, Rickenbacker does not challenge the voluntariness of his waiver. Accordingly, the waiver is enforceable. The waiver expressly precluded Rickenbacker from appealing any sentence within or below the advisory Guidelines range resulting from an adjusted base offense level of 31. Because the sentence imposed was within the advisory range based upon an court s offense level sentence, Government of 29, including arbitrarily any challenge Rickenbacker s decided not to move to the claim for reduction, * falls within the scope of that waiver. district that a the larger As such, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss Rickenbacker s appeal of his sentence. * Rickenbacker s assertion is based entirely on conjecture. He asserts that the Government s decision to move for only a one-level reduction, rather than the maximum two levels contemplated by the plea agreement or the four levels urged by Rickenbacker, was arbitrary. However, he does not assert that the Government s decision was based upon unconstitutional motives, and there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim. Moreover, Rickenbacker does not claim, and the record does not support, that the court based the imposed sentence on an unconstitutional motive. See Marin, 961 F.2d at 496 (defendant cannot waive right to appeal on the basis that the subject sentence was imposed based on constitutionally impermissible factor such as race). 3 However, completely the dispose of waiver s this enforceability appeal. does Rickenbacker s appellate waiver did not waive his right to appeal his conviction. Rickenbacker does not raise a specific challenge not Though to his conviction, pursuant to Anders, we must review the record for any meritorious issues. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and found no viable claims regarding Rickenbacker s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm Rickenbacker s convictions. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, believes but frivolous, counsel then counsel may withdraw from representation. that such move this a petition court for would be leave to Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 4
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.
