UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEVAR ANTHONY LEARY,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:21-cr-00005-D-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Lucy Partain 

Brown, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4033 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Levar Anthony Leary appeals his convictions and 300-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 

five kilograms or more of cocaine, a quantity of cocaine base, and five grams or more of 

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute 500 

grams or more of cocaine and five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Leary’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning 

whether Leary’s guilty plea and appeal waiver are invalid, whether trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance, whether the district court properly calculated the Sentencing 

Guidelines range, and whether the Government committed prosecutorial misconduct. 

Leary has filed a pro se brief raising a variety of additional challenges to his convictions 

and sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Leary’s plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. 

We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if 

it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Adams, 

814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). “A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and 

intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 

243 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “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 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4033 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 

2012). Upon review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the 

Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Leary knowingly and intelligently waived his right to 

appeal.

The appeal waiver does not preclude our review pursuant to Anders of the validity 

of the guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2018). 

Because Leary did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the 

Rule 11 hearing for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 

2016); see also United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014) (describing

standard). Our review of the record reveals that Leary entered his guilty plea knowingly 

and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported the plea, and that his guilty plea is valid. See 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b); Williams, 811 F.3d at 622. 

The appeal waiver forfeits Leary’s right to appeal his convictions and his sentence 

on any ground but contains an explicit exception for claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel or prosecutorial misconduct unknown to Leary at the time of his guilty plea. 

“Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record, such 

claims are not addressed on direct appeal.” United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 

(4th Cir. 2016). On the face of the record, there is no conclusive evidence of ineffective 

assistance that would fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Thus, Leary’s ineffective 

assistance claims should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United 

States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020). The available record likewise 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4033 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

reveals no breach of the plea agreement or prosecutorial misconduct that would fall outside 

the waiver’s scope. 

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal that would fall outside the appeal waiver’s broad 

compass. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part, dismiss the 

appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and affirm the remainder of the judgment. 

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

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

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: 22-4033 Doc: 42 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 4 of 4