US v. Morris Jones, No. 12-7600 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7600 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MORRIS KENDALL JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00016-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00070-BO) Submitted: November 27, 2013 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, January 9, 2014 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Morris Jones appeals the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion as untimely. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Jones § 2255 motion was timely; we expanded the certificate of appealability and directed the parties file supplemental briefs in light of Miller v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 4441547 (4th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), and Jones waiver of his right to conviction and sentence in a § 2255 proceeding. dismissal of Jones § 2255 motion, attack his We affirm the holding that Jones collateral attack was barred by the waiver of his rights in his plea agreement. The Government raised Jones waiver of collateral attack rights in the district court and on appeal. We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. We will enforce an appeal waiver to preclude a defendant from raising an issue if the waiver is valid and . . . the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. Lemaster, defendant 403 may F.3d 216, waive sentence collaterally, the so 220 Id.; see also United States v. (4th right long to as voluntary ). 2 Cir. attack the 2005) (holding that his conviction and waiver is knowing and On appeal, Jones does not contend that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent, asserting only that his claim is not within the scope of his waiver. Jones contends that, following our decision in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), the district court improperly enhanced his sentence based on Jones prior felony convictions. issue falls Applying Circuit precedent, we conclude that this within the scope of Jones waiver. See United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528-30 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 82 U.S.L.W. 3181 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2013) (No. 12-10514). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s denial of § 2255 relief. 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. AFFIRMED 3
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.
