Background
Tayron Jerome Griffin pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court imposed the statutory mandatory-minimum sentence of 120 months in prison.
Griffin’s counsel filed an Anders brief stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Griffin did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The government moved to dismiss based on the plea agreement’s appellate waiver.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that Griffin knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his sentence on any ground, except ineffective assistance of counsel, so long as the district court used an adjusted offense level of 32 when calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Because the district court used that offense level, the waiver applied, and counsel’s procedural- and substantive-reasonableness challenges fell squarely within its scope.
After independently reviewing the entire record under Anders, the court found no potentially meritorious issue that fell outside the waiver or could not legally be waived. It therefore granted the government’s motion in part and dismissed all issues covered by the waiver, denied the motion as to the remainder, and otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing appeal waiver is enforceable when the defendant entered it knowingly and intelligently and the challenged issues fall within its scope.
- Griffin’s waiver became operative because the district court calculated his Guidelines range using the agreed adjusted offense level of 32.
- The court’s independent Anders review identified no meritorious, nonwaived issue and no basis for treating enforcement as a miscarriage of justice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a plea agreement may tie an appellate waiver to a specific Guidelines calculation and that courts will enforce the waiver when that condition is satisfied. Routine challenges to a sentence’s procedural or substantive reasonableness will then be dismissed if they fall within the waiver.
The unpublished opinion also shows that an Anders review continues despite a valid waiver, but the court’s review focuses on potentially meritorious matters outside the waiver, issues that cannot be waived, and errors sufficiently egregious to make enforcement a miscarriage of justice.