US v. Kevin Eades, No. 14-4159 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4159 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KEVIN MITCHELL EADES, a/k/a EZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:13-cr-00504-GRA-1) Submitted: September 15, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek J. Enderlin, ROSS & ENDERLIN, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Eades appeals the district court s judgment sentencing him to 120 months imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession violation of 18 of a U.S.C. firearm §§ by a 922(g)(1), convicted 924(e) felon, (2012). in The Government has moved to dismiss Eades s appeal pursuant to the waiver of appellate rights to which he agreed at his sentencing. Eades contends that his waiver is voidable, he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal, his guilty plea is void, and his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to agree to the appeal waiver. We grant the motion in part, and dismiss the appeal except to the extent Eades raises ineffective assistance claims outside the scope of the waiver. As to the claims outside the scope of the waiver, we affirm. We reject voidable for received valuable faith, Eades s inadequate forbore contention or improper consideration its that pursuit when of his waiver consideration. the the Eades Government, Armed Career is in good Criminal sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 922(e), regardless of whether Eades Moreover, the might ultimately Government s have prevailed forbearance does on not the issue. constitute illegal consideration because the Government merely agreed not to pursue the enhancement. F.3d 1004, 1011 & n.9 Cf. United States v. Williams, 488 (D.C. Cir. 2 2007) (holding that the Government likely could not agree to a plea bargain which would directly circumvent a mandatory minimum). Thus, we turn to the waiver itself. A waiver will preclude an appeal[] [of] a specific issue if . . . the waiver is valid and . . . the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to [waive the right to appeal]. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). To determine whether a waiver is knowing examine and intelligent, circumstances. we the totality of the Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We review de novo whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal. Id. Upon district court review of adequately the record, explained waiver at Eades s sentencing. we the conclude that implications of the the Eades twice confirmed that he understood the waiver as explained. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) ( Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. ). The fact that this explanation took place at the sentencing, instead of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, is irrelevant. Therefore, we grant the Government s motion in part and dismiss Eades s appeal to the extent that he challenges his sentence. 3 We also dismiss Eades s appeal to the extent that he challenges the validity of his plea, as those claims are barred by the waiver. By contrast, Eades s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are not barred by the waiver, so we deny the Government s motion to dismiss as to those claims. See Manigan, 592 F.3d at 627; United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating ineffective assistance claims following guilty plea cannot be waived); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984) (providing standard). Nevertheless, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not generally cognizable conclusively appears on appeal from the unless ineffective record. United Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 2006). assistance States v. We decline to review Eades s ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal because ineffective assistance does not conclusively appear on this record. Eades must bring his claim if at all in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in order to allow for adequate development of the record. See United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to those claims within the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm the remainder of the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
