UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00077-JPB-JES-1) 

Submitted: January 30, 2014 Decided: March 12, 2014

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion. 

David Schles, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID SCHLES, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Alan McGonigal, Michael D. Stein, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Barton Joseph Adams pled guilty, pursuant to a written 

plea agreement, to one count of health care fraud, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1347 (2012), and one count of tax evasion, in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (2012). The district court 

sentenced Adams to concurrent terms of fifty months’ 

imprisonment and concurrent terms of three years’ supervised 

release. The district court also ordered that Adams forfeit 

$3,724,721 and pay restitution. 

On appeal from the judgment of conviction and the 

district court’s post-judgment order denying several of Adams’ 

then-pending motions as moot, Adams’ counsel has filed a brief 

raising six issues for review. Pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel questions whether 

Adams’ trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the 

proceedings below, whether Adams’ rights under the Sixth 

Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act were violated, whether the 

district court erred in finding that Adams had been restored to 

competency prior to the entry of his guilty plea, and whether 

the district court erred in denying Adams’ requests for new 

counsel. Counsel also questions whether the district court 

erred in holding Adams in contempt in the proceedings below and 

whether the court erred in denying a motion to release him from 

incarceration on the contempt finding. Relying on the appeal 
3

waiver in the plea agreement, the Government moves to dismiss 

the appeal. Adams has filed several pro se supplemental briefs. 

We dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter, 

492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). 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, the waiver is both valid and 

enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 

(4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly waived his right

to appeal is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. 

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Adams knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

convictions, fifty-month prison sentence, the three-year period 

of supervised release, and the forfeiture the district court 

imposed. We also conclude that counsel does not raise on appeal 

any issue falling outside of the compass of Adams’ waiver of 

appellate rights. We further conclude that — with the exception 

of his complaint regarding the Bureau of Prisons’ failure to 

award him sentencing and good-time credit and his challenge to 

the district court’s order of restitution — Adams does not raise 

in his pro se supplemental briefs any issues falling outside of 
4

the compass of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant the 

Government’s motion to dismiss Adams’ appeal as to all issues 

except those that we deem exempt from Adams’ valid and 

enforceable waiver of appellate rights. 

Although Adams’ appeal waiver insulates his 

convictions, prison sentence, term of supervised release, and 

the district court’s imposition of forfeiture from appellate 

review, the waiver does not preclude our consideration of Adams’ 

pro se claims regarding the computation of his sentence and 

challenging the order of restitution or prohibit our review of 

the remainder of the record pursuant to Anders. In accordance 

with Anders, we have reviewed these claims and the remainder of 

the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm Adams’ convictions and sentence to 

the extent our obligation pursuant to Anders extends to matters 

not precluded by the appeal waiver in Adams’ plea agreement. 

We further deny Adams’ motions to appoint counsel, for release 

pending appeal, and for an expedited decision on appointment of 

counsel. 

This court requires that counsel inform Adams, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Adams requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 
5

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Adams. 

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