UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4367

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO XAVIER WILSON, a/k/a Push It,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00986-TLW-7)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Justin M. Kata, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin Neale

Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Xavier Wilson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine 

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. The district court sentenced 

him to 175 months’ imprisonment. 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 Wilson’s guilty plea is valid and whether his sentence is 

reasonable. Wilson was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has 

not done so. The Government moves to dismiss Wilson’s appeal pursuant to the appellate 

waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss 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 being appealed falls 

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 

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 Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, confirms that Wilson knowingly and intelligently waived his right 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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

therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we grant the 

Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the 

waiver’s scope, including the sentencing issue raised by Anders counsel. 

The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our review pursuant to Anders of 

the validity of the guilty plea. See id. at 364. We therefore deny in part the Government’s 

motion to dismiss. Because Wilson did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the 

adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 

622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) 

(discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Wilson 

entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported the plea 

and all elements of his offense, and that his guilty plea is valid. See United States v. 

DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). 

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

found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Wilson’s valid appellate 

waiver. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope and 

affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel 

inform Wilson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States 

for further review. If Wilson 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 

Wilson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 4 of 4