UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4662

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DERRICK LAMONT DIXON, JR., 

Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-4663

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

DERRICK LAMONT DIXON, JR., a/k/a Smacc, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00560-WO-1; 1:21-cr-00159-

WO-1) 

Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4663 Doc: 52 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
2

Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. 

No. 22-4662, affirmed; No. 22-4663, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ON BRIEF: Brian Michael Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. JoAnna Gibson 

McFadden, Assistant United States Attorney, Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4663 Doc: 52 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Derrick Lamont Dixon, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to plea agreements, to conspiracy 

to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), 1963(a), 

and commission of a violent crime in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 

1959(a)(1) (“the RICO and VICAR case”), and possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (“the firearm case”). The district 

court sentenced Dixon to concurrent terms of life imprisonment in the RICO and VICAR 

case, a concurrent term of 120 months’ imprisonment in the firearm case, and concurrent 

supervised release terms of three years (in the firearm case) and five years per count (in the 

RICO and VICAR case). Dixon timely appealed the criminal judgments that issued in both 

cases. Appeal No. 22-4662 is the appeal in the firearm case, and appeal No. 22-4663 is the 

appeal in the RICO and VICAR case. 

On appeal, Dixon’s counsel filed a single brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

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

as issues for review whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in the RICO 

and VICAR case and plainly erred in that case by imposing the concurrent terms of life 

imprisonment. Dixon was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he 

has not done so. Invoking the appeal waiver in Dixon’s plea agreement in the RICO and 

VICAR case, the Government moves to dismiss appeal No. 22-4663. Dixon’s counsel has 

responded to the motion. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights. United 

States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014). Where, as here, the Government seeks 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4663 Doc: 52 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
4

enforcement of an appeal waiver and there is no claim that it breached its obligations under 

the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver to preclude an appeal of a specific issue if 

the waiver is valid and the issue falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Soloff, 

993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal 

is a question of law we review de novo. Id. The validity of an appeal waiver depends on 

whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. United 

States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018). To determine whether a waiver is 

valid, we examine “the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct 

of the defendant, his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and 

its terms.” Id. (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 

the waiver,” the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that Dixon knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his rights to appeal his “conviction and sentence on any ground” in the 

RICO and VICAR case. The challenges to Dixon’s convictions and sentences counsel 

raises for review fall squarely within the scope of Dixon’s valid waiver of appellate rights 

in that case. 

In accordance with Anders, we also have reviewed the remainder of the record in 

both cases and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. In appeal No. 22-4663, we 

grant the Government’s motion and dismiss that appeal. In appeal No. 22-4662, we affirm 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4663 Doc: 52 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
5

the criminal judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Dixon, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Dixon 

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 Dixon. 

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. 

No. 22-4662, AFFIRMED;

No. 22-4663, DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4663 Doc: 52 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 5 of 5