UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMARKIO QUINSHAUN INGRAM, a/k/a Block,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:19-cr-00984-CMC-1)

Submitted: July 28, 2022 Decided: August 9, 2022

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin Neale Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 7
2

PER CURIAM:

Demarkio Quinshaun Ingram pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, 

to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of 

heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. The district court sentenced 

Ingram to 360 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Ingram’s counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal but questioning whether Ingram’s guilty plea is valid and whether 

Ingram’s within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. In a pro se brief, Ingram argues that 

the district court clearly erred when calculating the drug weight used to calculate his 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range; his guilty plea is invalid because the plea was not 

supported by a sufficient factual basis and because of an error in the indictment; the 

Government breached the plea agreement; the Government engaged in misconduct at 

sentencing; and his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance. The Government has not 

responded to the Anders brief or moved to enforce the appeal wavier contained in the plea

agreement. 

A guilty plea is valid if the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently 

pleads guilty “with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely 

consequences.” United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 464 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “In evaluating the constitutional validity of a guilty plea, courts 

look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, granting the defendant’s solemn 

declaration of guilt a presumption of truthfulness.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 

263, 278 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 7
3

must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines he 

understands, the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is 

pleading, and the maximum and any mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(b)(1). The court also must ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result of 

threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), 

and that there is a factual basis for the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). 

Because Ingram did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object to the plea 

hearing in the district court, our review is for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 

812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). Under the plain error standard, we will correct an unpreserved 

error “only when (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects 

substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Walker, 32 F.4th 377, 394-95 (4th 

Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In the Rule 11 context, this inquiry means 

that [the defendant] must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he 

would not have pleaded guilty.” Sanya, 774 F.3d at 816 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

A reasonable probability is one that is “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome 

of the proceeding.” United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187, 192-93 (4th Cir. 2020) (en 

banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude 

that Ingram’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual 

basis, and the district court did not plainly err in accepting it. Furthermore, Ingram has not 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 3 of 7
4

established a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged error in the indictment, he 

would not have pleaded guilty.1

Ingram also argues that his guilty plea is invalid because the Government breached 

the plea agreement by relying on the conduct underlying dismissed charges when arguing 

for an appropriate sentence. “[A] defendant alleging the Government’s breach of a plea 

agreement bears the burden of establishing that breach by a preponderance of the 

evidence.” United States v. Snow, 234 F.3d 187, 189 (4th Cir. 2000). The Government 

breaches a plea agreement when an express or implied promise or assurance it made to 

induce the plea remains unfulfilled. See United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 (4th 

Cir. 2019). We conclude that Ingram’s argument on this point is not supported by the 

record, as the plain language of the plea agreement does not limit the Government in the 

way that Ingram suggests. 

As to Ingram’s sentence, we review criminal sentences for both procedural and 

substantive reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United 

States v. Lewis, 18 F.4th 743, 748 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“When evaluating a sentencing court’s calculation of the advisory Guidelines range, this 

[c]ourt reviews the district court’s factual findings, and its judgment regarding factual 

disputes, for clear error.” United States v. Medley, 34 F.4th 326, 337 (4th Cir. 2022)

(internal quotation marks omitted).

1 By pleading guilty, Ingram waived his ability to challenge to the sufficiency of the 

indictment except to the extent that the alleged error affected the adequacy of his plea. See 

Moussaoui, 591 F.3d at 279.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 4 of 7
5

When reviewing whether a sentence is reasonable, we first “ensure that the district 

court committed no significant procedural error.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 

668 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If [we] find no significant 

procedural error, [we] then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence 

imposed.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). We

look to “the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its 

discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in 

§ 3553(a).” Id. at 176 (internal quotation marks omitted). A within-Guidelines sentence 

is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th 934, 945 (4th Cir. 2022), 

petition for cert. filed, No. 21-8089 (U.S. June 8, 2022). A defendant can only rebut that

presumption by showing the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

We conclude that Ingram’s sentence is reasonable. The district court did not clearly 

err when calculating the applicable drug weight at sentencing, nor did it abuse its discretion 

in crediting Ingram’s coconspirator’s testimony when doing so. Moreover, the district 

court otherwise correctly calculated Ingram’s advisory Guidelines range, thoroughly 

explained its reasoning for imposing the sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors, and addressed Ingram’s arguments regarding the appropriate sentence. Finally, 

Ingram has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable, nor has he established that the Government engaged in 

misconduct at sentencing.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 5 of 7
6

Ingram also argues that his attorneys rendered ineffective assistance before the 

district court and on appeal. We review de novo an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 

that is made on direct appeal but “will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial 

record itself that the defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States 

v. Freeman, 24 F.4th 320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). After reviewing the 

record, we conclude that Ingram’s claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.2

 

In reviewing the record pursuant to Anders, we have identified a clerical error in the 

written judgment, which incorrectly states that Ingram pleaded guilty to 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(C), rather than § 841(b)(1)(B). Thus, although we affirm the criminal 

judgment, we remand to permit the district court to correct this clerical error. See Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 36.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment

and remand for correction of the clerical error in the criminal judgment. This court requires 

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

United States for further review. If Ingram 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 Ingram.

2 Ingram should bring these claims, if at all, in in a motion brought pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 to permit sufficient development of the record. United States v. Jordan, 

962 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th Cir. 2020).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 6 of 7
7

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 AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4348 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/09/2022 Pg: 7 of 7