USCA4 Appeal: 24-4260 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSE BERNALE STINES, JR., a/k/a Shyne,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00510-FL-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Decided: December 27, 2024

Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mitchell G. Styers, BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC, Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Katherine Simpson Englander, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4260 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Jesse Bernale Stines, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of

(a)(1),

(b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1), 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Stines to 151 months’ imprisonment

and three years of supervised release with certain conditions. We affirmed Stines’s

convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district

court included discretionary conditions of supervised release in its written judgment that it

had not announced at the sentencing hearing. United States v. Stines, No. 23-4444 (4th

Cir. Feb. 5, 2024) (unpublished order); see United States v. Rogers,

(4th Cir. 2020); United States v. Singletary,

(4th Cir. 2021).

On remand, the district court reimposed the 151-month sentence and the three-year

term of supervised release with certain conditions, all of which were announced at the

resentencing hearing. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

questioning whether Stines’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Although informed of his right to do so, Stines has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

The Government moves to dismiss Stines’s appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in his

plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

“We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo.” United States v. Soloff,

(4th Cir. 2021). “Where the Government seeks to enforce an appeal

waiver and the defendant has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce a

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4260 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

valid appeal waiver where the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”

United States v. McGrath,

(4th Cir. 2020). “A waiver is valid if the

defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.” Soloff,

(internal quotation marks omitted). “To determine whether a waiver is

knowing and intelligent, we examine the totality of the circumstances, including the

experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s educational background

and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. Thornsbury,

(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally though, if a

district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule

11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of

the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy,

(4th Cir. 2018)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record confirms that Stines knowingly and intelligently waived

his right to appeal his sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore

conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the issue counsel raises falls

squarely within the scope of the waiver.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Stines’s valid

appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and

dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and

otherwise affirm.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4260 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

This court requires that counsel inform Stines, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Stines requests that a petition be

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that

a copy thereof was served on Stines. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

4