USCA4 Appeal: 23-4228 Doc: 26 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4228

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL ELIJAH JENRETTE, a/k/a Sammy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00293-D-1)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 5, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Peter M. Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4228 Doc: 26 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Elijah Jenrette pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base

(crack), in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (Count 1), and distribution

of cocaine base (crack), in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (Count 4). The

district court sentenced Jenrette to concurrent terms of 216 months’ imprisonment. On

appeal, Jenrette’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking this court to

review the underlying proceedings for error. Jenrette was informed of his right to file a

pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss

the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Jenrette’s plea agreement. We affirm in part,

dismiss in part, and remand for correction of a clerical error.

“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher,

(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the

defendant enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by

considering the totality of the circumstances.”

“Generally though, if a district court

questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.]

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).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4228 Doc: 26 Filed: 02/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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

his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here.

We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

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

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal that are outside the scope of Jenrette’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 otherwise affirm. We remand

this case, however, so that the district court may amend the criminal judgment to include a

citation to the statute, the nature of the offense, and the offense end date for Count 4 in the

section of the judgment listing the offenses for which the “defendant is adjudicated guilty.”

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 (addressing correction of clerical errors).

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

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jenrette 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 Jenrette. 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, AND REMANDED

3