Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-04138/USCOURTS-ca4-24-04138-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Camilla Ann Littlefield
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CAMILLA ANN LITTLEFIELD, a/k/a Cammie Littlefield,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00148-D-RJ-2)

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

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

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Chiege O. Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4138 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Camilla Ann Littlefield pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of 

methamphetamine and distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), (a)(1). The district court sentenced her to 180 months’ 

imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal but questioning whether counsel provided ineffective assistance at 

sentencing in failing to object to the drug quantity listed in the presentence investigation 

report (PSR). Littlefield did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of her 

right to do so. The Government has moved to dismiss Littlefield’s appeal as barred by the 

appellate waiver in her plea agreement.1

 We dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

“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[s] being appealed 

fall[] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (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.” Id. “Generally though, if a district court questions a 

defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy 

1 The Government acknowledges, however, that ineffective assistance of counsel 

claims fall outside the scope of the appellate waiver. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4138 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3

and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, 

the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 

11 hearing, confirms that Littlefield knowingly and intelligently waived her right to appeal 

her conviction and sentence, excepting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and 

prosecutorial misconduct. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. 

The waiver provision in the plea agreement does not preclude our review of 

Littlefield’s ineffective assistance claim. To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, 

Littlefield “must show that counsel’s performance was [constitutionally] deficient” and 

“that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 687 (1984). However, “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively 

appears on the face of the record, [ineffective assistance] claims are not addressed on direct 

appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016).

The record does not conclusively establish that plea counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance related to the probation officer’s computation of drug quantity.

2

 See United 

States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Our review of the record 

shows that Littlefield provided an unprotected statement that established the foundation for 

the drug quantity contained in the PSR. Littlefield also confirmed that she had reviewed 

2 Accordingly, Littlefield’s “ineffective assistance claim should be raised, if at all, 

in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4138 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

the PSR with counsel and had no objections to the report. Thus, we conclude that 

ineffective assistance of counsel does not conclusively appear on the face of the record 

before us. 

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 Littlefield’s valid 

appellate waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Littlefield’s 

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

motion in part and otherwise affirm. 

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

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Littlefield 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 Littlefield. 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. 

DISMISSED IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4138 Doc: 22 Filed: 12/27/2024 Pg: 4 of 4