throbber
UNPUBLISHED
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 15-4456
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`EDDIE LEE SWEENEY, a/k/a Eddie Lee Sweeney Jefferson,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant - Appellant.
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
`Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00412-CCE-2)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: December 21, 2020
`
`
`
`Decided: January 15, 2021
`
`
`
`Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
`
`
`Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`
`
`Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public
`Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, North
`Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G. T. Martin, United States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson,
`Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
`Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`

`

`PER CURIAM:
`
`
`
`Eddie Lee Sweeney pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to carrying
`
`and using, by discharging, a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). The underlying crimes of violence for the
`
`§ 924(c) offense were the charges of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and
`
`attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a). The district court
`
`sentenced Sweeney to 80 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Sweeney contends that after
`
`Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), his § 924(c) conviction must be vacated
`
`because its predicate offenses are not crimes of violence. The Government has moved to
`
`dismiss this appeal as barred by the appellate waiver in Sweeney’s plea agreement.
`
`Sweeney acknowledges that the waiver is enforceable as to the issues within its scope.
`
`However, he argues that his claim is outside of the scope of the waiver because he is
`
`actually innocent of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We deny the Government’s motion to
`
`dismiss, vacate Sweeney’s conviction, and remand for further proceedings.
`
`We review de novo whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal. United
`
`States v. Cohen, 888 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018). “Plea agreements are grounded in
`
`contract law, and as with any contract, each party is entitled to receive the benefit of his
`
`bargain.” United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted). Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and
`
`has not breached the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it “is valid and the issue
`
`being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151,
`
`156 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`“Generally, 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. Tate,
`
`845 F.3d 571, 574 n.1 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United
`
`States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing the factors courts
`
`consider). The record establishes that the district court explained the appellate waiver to
`
`Sweeney, that he understood he was waiving his appellate rights, and that his guilty plea
`
`was knowing and voluntary. Therefore, Sweeney’s appellate waiver is valid.
`
`“A waiver remains valid even in light of a subsequent change in the law.” United
`
`States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). An
`
`appeal waiver, however, does not bar an appeal as to matters outside the scope of the
`
`waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, we will
`
`“refuse to enforce an otherwise valid waiver if to do so would result in a miscarriage of
`
`justice.” United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
`
`marks omitted); see Adams, 814 F.3d at 182. And “[a] proper showing of actual innocence
`
`is sufficient to satisfy the miscarriage of justice requirement.” Id. (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`Sweeney argues that his appeal falls outside of the scope of his appellate waiver
`
`because he can establish actual innocence. See id., 814 F.3d at 182 (concluding that
`
`cognizable claim of actual innocence falls outside scope of waiver). Because Sweeney did
`
`not argue in the district court that the predicates for his § 924(c) conviction did not qualify
`
`as crimes of violence, we review his claim for plain error. To succeed on plain error review,
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Sweeney “must show (1) that the district court erred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3)
`
`that the error affected his substantial rights.” See Cohen, 888 F.3d at 685. As to the second
`
`plain error prong, “[a]n error is plain if the settled law of the Supreme Court or this circuit
`
`establishes that an error has occurred.” United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 516 (4th
`
`Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if Sweeney satisfies those three plain
`
`error requirements, this court “possess[es] discretion on whether to recognize the error”
`
`and will not “do so unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
`
`reputation of judicial proceedings.” Cohen, 888 F.3d at 685 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`We conclude that Sweeney has made the required showing. Sweeney’s § 924(c)
`
`conviction was predicated on conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and attempted
`
`Hobbs Act robbery. In United States v. Davis, the Supreme Court concluded that the
`
`residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323-24
`
`(2019), and in United States v. Simms, we held that conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act
`
`robbery is not a crime of violence under the force clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). 914
`
`F.3d 229, 233-34 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 304 (2019). Recently, we
`
`held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a crime of violence. United States v. Taylor,
`
`978 F.3d 73, 77-78 (4th Cir. 2020). Because Sweeney’s § 924(c) conviction is not
`
`supported by a valid predicate, he has made a proper showing of actual innocence. We
`
`therefore decline to enforce the waiver and deny the Government’s motion to dismiss.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Accordingly, we vacate Sweeney’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction and remand for
`
`further proceedings. 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.
`
`VACATED AND REMANDED
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket