Background
Darrel McHoney pleaded guilty in 2011 to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm by a felon. After he later violated supervised release, the district court imposed an additional prison term followed by 36 months of supervised release.
In 2024, McHoney pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute para-fluorofentanyl. The district court sentenced him to 110 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Based on that new conviction, McHoney admitted violating the conditions of his earlier supervised release, and the court revoked release and imposed a 24-month prison sentence with no additional supervision.
McHoney appealed both judgments. His attorney filed an Anders brief questioning his career-offender designation in the new criminal case but did not identify an issue concerning the revocation judgment. The government moved to dismiss all issues covered by the appellate waiver in McHoney’s plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the supervised-release revocation. McHoney admitted the violations and pleaded guilty to the new criminal conduct, providing a sufficient basis for revocation. The court also held that the 24-month revocation sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable because the district court correctly calculated the applicable policy-statement range, adequately explained its decision, and imposed a sentence within that range.
The court enforced McHoney’s appellate waiver as to his challenge to the sentence for the new drug conviction. After reviewing the plea agreement and Rule 11 transcript, the panel concluded that McHoney’s guilty plea was valid and that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims. His career-offender challenge fell squarely within the waiver.
Following its independent Anders review, the court found no meritorious grounds for appeal. It therefore dismissed the appeal from the new criminal judgment as to issues within the waiver, affirmed the revocation judgment, and affirmed the remainder of the criminal judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A knowing and intelligent appellate waiver barred McHoney’s challenge to his career-offender designation.
- McHoney’s admission to the supervised-release violations and guilty plea to the new offense supported revocation.
- The within-policy-statement-range revocation sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the Fourth Circuit’s willingness to enforce plea-agreement appeal waivers when the Rule 11 record shows that the defendant understood the waiver. A sentencing issue ordinarily covered by such a waiver cannot evade dismissal merely because counsel raises it in an Anders brief.
The opinion also confirms that revocation judgments remain independently reviewable when they are outside the waiver’s scope, though a properly calculated and adequately explained sentence within the Chapter Seven policy-statement range will generally withstand review under the circuit’s plainly-unreasonable standard.