US v. Dominique Jone, No. 11-4130 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-4130 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER JONES, a/k/a Big Nique, a/k/a Nique, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00074-F-1) Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: September 30, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jorgelina E. Araneda, ARANEDA LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Dominique Alexander Jones pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine § 841(a)(1) (2006). and sentence. base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Jones now seeks to appeal his conviction The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Jones s waiver of the right to appeal included in his plea agreement. Our reading of the waiver convinces us that Jones may proceed with his challenge to his conviction, but that his challenges to the validity of his sentence are waived. Therefore, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss as to the sentencing issues and deny it as to Jones s challenge to his guilty plea. Jones first argues that his conviction is because his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. accepting a guilty plea, a district court must invalid Prior to inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant comprehends, the nature of mandatory the charge minimum to which penalty, the he is maximum pleading possible guilty, penalty any he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The court must also determine whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id. at 120. In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, this court reviews the adequacy of a 2 guilty plea pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the record reveals that the district court fully accepting complied Jones s with plea. the requirements Furthermore, we of find Rule in merit no 11 in Jones s argument that Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(M) required the district court regarding his to provide potential him with sentence additional before accepting information his plea. Accordingly, we find that Jones s plea was knowing and voluntary and affirm his conviction. Jones also asserts that the sentencing issues he seeks to raise on appeal are not barred by the terms of his waiver of appellate rights. waive his Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). A valid waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue is within the scope of the waiver. F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Blick, 408 Jones does not contest the validity of his waiver, and we find that the sentencing issues he seeks to raise on appeal fall squarely within the scope of his waiver of appellate rights. Additionally, we find no merit in his contention that the wording of his waiver is ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. 3 Therefore, we find that the sentencing issues Jones seeks to raise on appeal are barred by the terms of his waiver of appellate rights. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in part and affirm Jones s conviction. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
