UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GURBIR SINGH GREWAL, a/k/a Gavin,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00491-D-1)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown,

Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4071 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Gurbir Singh Grewal appeals his convictions and 180-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and 

abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), and possession of 

a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and aiding and abetting, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court properly calculated 

Grewal’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Grewal did not file a pro se supplemental 

brief despite being notified of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss this 

appeal as barred by the appellate waiver contained in Grewal’s plea agreement. For the 

following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and Grewal has 

not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the 

issue raised on appeal falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Dillard, 891 

F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). Grewal does not contest that he knowingly and intelligently 

waived his right to appeal, see United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010), 

and our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Grewal’s guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary and that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Grewal’s challenge 

to the calculation of his advisory Guidelines range falls squarely within the waiver’s scope, 

and we have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no 

potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4071 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
3

we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Grewal’s appeal of his sentence and affirm 

the remainder of the district court’s judgment. 

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

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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4071 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3