UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES WALKER, a/k/a X,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00307-1)

Submitted: July 26, 2023 Decided: August 4, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: John A. Carr, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy Doyle 

Boggess, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/04/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

James Walker pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and hydromorphone, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced Walker to 186 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 the court 

erred in denying Walker a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in calculating 

Walker’s criminal history category. Walker has filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting 

that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to investigate the 

incident that led to the denial of the reduction for acceptance of responsibility and by failing 

to object to the court’s consideration of Walker’s old prior convictions. The Government 

has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Walker’s plea 

agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. 

We review the validity of an appellate 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 defendant validly waives his appeal rights if 

he agreed to the waiver “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 

621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant 

regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance 

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the record shows that the defendant understood the waiver’s 

significance, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Thornsbury, 670 

F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review of the record confirms that Walker knowingly 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/04/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
3

and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. We therefore conclude that the 

waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issues counsel raises on appeal fall 

squarely within the scope of the waiver. 

Walker’s claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance fall outside of the 

scope of his appeal waiver. Unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance, however, such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. 

United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Because the present record 

does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to 

address these claims on direct appeal. Walker’s arguments are more appropriately raised, 

if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th 

Cir. 2020).

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Walker’s appeal waiver. We 

therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to all 

issues within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court 

requires that counsel inform Walker, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United States for further review. If Walker 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 Walker. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/04/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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: 21-4406 Doc: 38 Filed: 08/04/2023 Pg: 4 of 4