UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEREMY LYNN SAUNDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:15-cr-00002-RAJ-DEM-2)

Submitted: December 22, 2015 Decided: January 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Theuer, JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy Lynn Saunders pled guilty to conspiracy to 

distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 

841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2012), and possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). The district court sentenced him to a 

term of 300 months in prison. In accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saunders’ attorney has filed a 

brief certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in 

denying Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Saunders 

filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting that his guilty 

plea was neither knowing nor voluntary. The Government has 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on Saunders’ waiver 

of appellate rights. We deny the motion and affirm. 

We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights. 

United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). A 

defendant may waive his right to appeal as part of a valid plea 

agreement. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th 

Cir. 2010). In assessing whether an appellate waiver bars a 

defendant’s appeal, we analyze both the validity and the scope 

of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168, 171 

n.10 (4th Cir. 2010). “The validity of an appeal waiver depends 
3

on whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to 

waive the right to appeal.” Id. at 169. 

Saunders does not challenge the validity of the waiver. 

Moreover, a review of the record indicates that the district 

court specifically reviewed the terms of the appellate waiver

with Saunders during the plea colloquy. Given no indication in 

the record to the contrary, we conclude that Saunders’ waiver of 

appellate rights is valid and enforceable. 

Saunders’ appellate waiver does not, however, preclude our 

review of the voluntariness of the plea or the district court’s 

denial of Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on 

ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. 

Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). Thus, we deny the 

Government’s motion to dismiss Saunders’ appeal. Our review of 

the plea colloquy leaves us with no doubt that Saunders 

knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea and that the plea was 

supported by an independent basis in fact. With regard to the 

denial of Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we have 

reviewed the record and, after carefully considering the factors

set forth in United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 384 (4th 

Cir. 2012), conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Saunders’ motion, see id. at 383 (stating 

standard of review).
4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case, mindful of the scope of the appellate waiver, and 

have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s order denying Saunders’ motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea. This court requires that counsel 

inform Saunders, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Saunders requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Saunders. 

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