Background
Lloyd Eugene Rhodes, II, pleaded guilty under an agreement waiving his right to appeal his conviction and any sentence within the statutory maximum, except for an ineffective-assistance claim cognizable on direct appeal. The district court originally imposed an aggregate 480-month prison sentence for two Hobbs Act robbery convictions and a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
After partially granting Rhodes’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and vacating the § 924(c) conviction, the district court resentenced him on the two Hobbs Act robbery counts. It again imposed an aggregate 480-month term by ordering two 240-month sentences to run consecutively. Rhodes’s counsel filed an Anders brief identifying no meritorious grounds for appeal but asking whether any claims fell outside the waiver, and the government moved to dismiss the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that Rhodes knowingly and intelligently entered a valid appeal waiver and that the waiver covered his ordinary sentencing challenges. After independently reviewing the record under Anders, the court found no potentially meritorious issue outside the waiver: the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, the record did not conclusively establish ineffective assistance, and there was no allegation that the government breached the plea agreement.
The court separately considered Rhodes’s claim that the resentencing was vindictive because that type of claim may be reviewed despite an appeal waiver. Applying the aggregate-package approach, the court held that no presumption of vindictiveness arose because Rhodes’s new aggregate sentence—480 months—was not greater than his original aggregate sentence. The court therefore rejected the vindictiveness claim, dismissed the appeal as to issues barred by the waiver, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- A knowing and intelligent appeal waiver remains enforceable after resentencing as to claims within its scope.
- A defendant may raise a sentencing-vindictiveness claim notwithstanding a general appeal waiver.
- Under the aggregate-package approach, an unchanged total prison term is not an increased sentence and does not trigger a presumption of vindictiveness.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that vacating one count in post-conviction proceedings does not necessarily require a lower aggregate sentence when the district court restructures the sentences on the remaining counts within their statutory limits. It also confirms that the Fourth Circuit evaluates alleged resentencing vindictiveness by comparing the total original and revised sentencing packages.
For appellate counsel, the opinion underscores the narrow range of claims that survive a valid appeal waiver and the court’s continuing obligation under Anders to review the record for potentially meritorious issues outside the waiver.