UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4335

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRANDON SCOTT SACKRIDER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, 

District Judge. (5:14-cr-00026-RLV-DSC-1)

Submitted: February 16, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Scott Sackrider pled guilty in accordance with a 

written plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute and to possess 

with intent to distribute heroin and Xanax. He was sentenced to 

188 months in prison. He now appeals. His attorney filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning 

the voluntariness of the plea but stating that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Sackrider filed a pro se brief 

claiming that he was incorrectly sentenced as a career offender. 

We ordered supplemental briefing on this issue. After Sackrider’s 

attorney responded to our order, the United States moved to dismiss 

the appeal on the basis of a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision 

in Sackrider’s plea agreement. We grant the motion to dismiss the 

appeal. 

Upon review of the record, including the plea agreement and 

the transcripts of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding and the 

sentencing hearing, we conclude that Sackrider’s waiver was 

knowing and voluntary. The record reflects substantial compliance 

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Sackrider represented to the court that 

he was satisfied with the services of his attorney, with whom he 

had discussed his case and reviewed the plea agreement. Sackrider 

stated that the factual basis for the plea was accurate, he was 

guilty, and the plea was not the result of threats or promises 

other than those promises contained in the plea agreement. 
3

Notably, the court questioned Sackrider about the waiver 

provision, which was clearly set forth in a separate paragraph of 

the plea agreement. Sackrider stated that he understood that he 

was waiving his appellate rights.

We further find that the issue Sackrider seeks to raise on 

appeal—whether, under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 

(2015), a prior North Carolina conviction qualified as a predicate 

felony for career offender status—falls within the scope of the 

waiver.* Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss. 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for 

meritorious nonwaivable issues, see United States v. Johnson, 410 

F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005), and have found none. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel inform 

Sackrider, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court 

of the United State for further review. If Sackrider requests 

that such a petition be filed, but counsel believes that the 

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 of the motion was served on Sackrider. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

 * Sackrider agreed to waive his right to appeal both his 

conviction and sentence, with certain exceptions not relevant 

here.
4

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED