USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4251

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERRY JARELL MCKNIGHT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00454-MGL-1)

Submitted: April 5, 2024 Decided: October 4, 2024

Before HARRIS, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Jarell McKnight, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 2 of 7

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Jarell McKnight, Jr., pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of

(g)(1); and possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).

The district court sentenced McKnight to 77 months’ imprisonment for each count, to be

served concurrently. On appeal, McKnight, proceeding pro se, argues that the district court

violated several of his constitutional rights and that his sentence is procedurally

unreasonable. We affirm.

McKnight first contends that the district court violated his Second Amendment right

to have a firearm because he was not a person prohibited from having a firearm at the time

that he possessed one. McKnight also argues that the federal prosecution violated his Tenth

Amendment right to be policed by the state. However, McKnight has not alleged, and the

record does not demonstrate, that his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily.

See United States v. Fitzgerald,

(4th Cir. 2016) (holding that a valid

guilty plea must be entered “knowingly, intelligently, and with sufficient awareness of the

relevant circumstances and likely consequences”).

It is well established that, “when a defendant pleads guilty, he waives all

nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings conducted prior to entry of the plea and has no

[nonjurisdictional] ground upon which to attack that judgment except the inadequacy of

the plea [under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11].” United States v. Glover,

(4th Cir.

2021) (cleaned up). This rule applies to bar appellate review even when the claims stem

from an alleged “deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 3 of 7

guilty plea.” United States v. Moussaoui,

(internal quotation marks

omitted). We conclude that McKnight waived these constitutional claims when he pleaded

guilty.

McKnight next argues that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment rights to

an indictment by grand jury and due process, and his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by

jury, because the court attributed drug weights to him for sentencing that were not charged

in the indictment. We disagree. McKnight was charged with possession with intent to

distribute a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and was thus

subject to a term of not more than 20 years of imprisonment.

(b)(1)(C).

The district court sentenced McKnight to 77 months of imprisonment, well within the

statutory maximum. Therefore, the court did not violate McKnight’s constitutional rights

by calculating the drug weight for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. See, e.g., United

States v. Ramirez-Negron,

(1st Cir. 2014) (“[F]actual findings made for

purposes of applying the Guidelines, which influence the sentencing judge’s discretion in

imposing an advisory Guidelines sentence and do not result in imposition of a mandatory

minimum sentence, do not violate” a defendant’s constitutional rights.)

McKnight also argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by arguing

that the court should attribute these drug weights to him for sentencing purposes. “Because

[McKnight] did not challenge the [G]overnment’s purported breach of the plea agreement

before the district court, we review his claim for plain error.” United States v. Edgell,

(4th Cir. 2019). We consider whether the government breached the clear

requirements of a plea agreement “employ[ing] traditional principles of contract law as a

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 4 of 7

guide,” while “giv[ing] plea agreements greater scrutiny than we would apply to a

commercial contract because a defendant’s fundamental and constitutional rights are

implicated when he is induced to plead guilty by reason of a plea agreement.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the

Government did not breach any of its obligations under the plea agreement.

Liberally construing McKnight’s arguments regarding the drug weight, see Wojcicki

v. SCANA/SCE&G,

(4th Cir. 2020), McKnight appears to challenge the

district court’s calculation of the drug weight attributed to him under the Guidelines. We

review a criminal sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.

United States,

(2007). Before assessing substantive reasonableness, we

must first determine whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable. See United States v.

Webb,

(4th Cir. 2020). A district court commits procedural error “by

failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines

as mandatory, failing to consider the

(a) factors, selecting a sentence based

on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United

States v. Ventura,

(4th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).

“In reviewing whether a sentencing court properly calculated the Guidelines range,

we review the [district] court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de

novo.” United States v. Shephard,

(4th Cir. 2018). “[A] sentencing

court may consider uncharged and acquitted conduct in determining a sentence, as long as

that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence,” United States v. Grubbs,

(4th Cir. 2009), and may also draw inferences from the evidence, so long as

4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 5 of 7

those inferences are not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Kiulin,

(4th Cir. 2004).

“Under the Guidelines, the drug quantities that may be attributed to the defendant

include the quantities associated with the defendant’s offense of conviction and any

relevant conduct.” United States v. Flores-Alvarado,

(4th Cir. 2015).

Relevant conduct includes “all acts and omissions committed, aided, [or] abetted . . . by

the defendant . . . that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction.” USSG

§ 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). “[I]n a drug distribution case, quantities and types of drugs not specified

in the count of conviction are to be included in determining the offense level if they were

part of the same course of conduct . . . as the count of conviction.” USSG § 1B1.3, cmt.

background. Thus, a sentencing court may consider quantities and types of drugs that were

not charged or otherwise specified in the indictment, as long as it finds, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that the conduct occurred and was part of the same course of conduct as

the count of conviction. United States v. Williams,

(4th Cir. 1992).

The charges to which McKnight pleaded guilty stemmed from a traffic stop of

McKnight’s vehicle in April 2019, during which authorities recovered methamphetamine,

synthetic cathinone, and marijuana, all packaged in separate baggies, and a firearm. In

addition, during a traffic stop in January 2019, authorities recovered two types of drugs

from McKnight, both synthetic cathinones. Then, in September 2020, authorities

recovered from McKnight a synthetic cathinone separated into small baggies during

another traffic stop. In finding that the January 2019 and September 2020 traffic stops

were relevant conduct, the district court considered that similar drugs were found during

5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 6 of 7

each traffic stop, and drug dealers often sell different drugs at different times. The court

also considered that drug dealing operations often continue for lengthy periods of time.

Based on the district court’s findings, we find no clear error in the court’s determination

that the drugs recovered from each traffic stop were part of the same ongoing series of

offenses. See Williams,

(listing factors to consider in determining whether

defendant’s conduct was part of same course of conduct).

Finally, McKnight claims that the district court did not announce the discretionary

conditions of his supervised release at the sentencing hearing. In United States v. Rogers,

(4th Cir. 2020), “we held that district courts must announce all discretionary

conditions of supervised release at a defendant’s sentencing hearing.” United States v.

Cisson,

(4th Cir. 2022). “Discretionary conditions that appear for the

first time in a subsequent written judgment, we held, are nullities; the defendant has not

been sentenced to those conditions, and a remand for resentencing is required.” United

States v. Singletary,

(4th Cir. 2021). “But the district court may satisfy

this obligation through incorporation—by incorporating, for instance, all Guidelines

standard conditions.” United States v. Elbaz,

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal

quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,

(2023).

Here, the district court announced that McKnight would be subject to the mandatory

conditions of supervised release as outlined in

(d) and USSG § 5D1.3(a),

and the standard conditions as outlined in USSG § 5D1.3(c), after confirming that

McKnight had reviewed those conditions as recommended in the presentence report and

did not object to them. The court also announced the special conditions of supervised

6 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4251 Doc: 80 Filed: 10/04/2024 Pg: 7 of 7

release at the sentencing hearing, which match the conditions listed in the criminal

judgment. Accordingly, the court either incorporated the conditions by reference, or

explicitly stated them. Thus, we find no Rogers error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We also deny all of

McKnight’s pending motions. 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

7