Court Opinion

ID: 9905688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 21:01:08.63027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:50.432984
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4340      Doc: 38         Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4340

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        KENNETH EARL PIPER, a/k/a Smoke Piper,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00106-D-1)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                                Decided: November 28, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John L. Warren III, LAW OFFICE OF BILL NETTLES, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain
        Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4340      Doc: 38          Filed: 11/28/2023       Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Earl Piper pleaded guilty to carjacking and aiding and abetting, in violation

        of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2119, and brandishing firearms in furtherance of a crime of violence and

        aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court

        sentenced Piper to 198 months’ imprisonment and he now appeals. Piper’s counsel has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

        no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Piper’s guilty plea is valid and

        whether Piper’s sentence is reasonable. Piper has filed a supplemental pro se brief raising

        a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Government has moved to dismiss

        the appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Piper’s plea agreement. For the

        following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               First, Piper’s waiver of appellate rights does not prevent him from challenging the

        validity of the plea itself. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018).

        Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs

        the defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the nature of the charges

        to which he is pleading guilty, any applicable mandatory minimum sentence, the maximum

        possible penalty he faces, and the various rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed.

        R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). The

        court also must ensure that the defendant’s plea is voluntary, supported by an independent

        factual basis, and that the plea did not result from force, threats, or promises not contained

        in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3); Williams, 811 F.3d at 622.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4340       Doc: 38         Filed: 11/28/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

               Because Piper neither raised an objection during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding

        nor moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the plea colloquy

        only for plain error. United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2014). To establish

        plain error, Piper “must show that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the

        error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187, 191 (4th

        Cir. 2020) (en banc). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court

        fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in conducting Piper’s plea colloquy, see

        Williams, 811 F.3d at 622, and we find that Piper’s guilty plea is valid.

               Next, we review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Cohen,

        888 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018). We will generally enforce a waiver if it is valid and the

        issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Dillard, 891

        F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 2018). A defendant’s waiver of appellate rights is valid if he entered

        it “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir.

        2010). Based on our review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing,

        we conclude that Piper knowingly waived his right to appeal, with limited exceptions, and

        that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion

        to dismiss Piper’s appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope.

               With respect to the argument raised in Piper’s pro se brief, although ineffective

        assistance of counsel claims fall outside the scope of the waiver, “we 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). Because the present record does not conclusively show that trial counsel

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4340      Doc: 38          Filed: 11/28/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        rendered ineffective assistance, Piper’s claim is not cognizable on direct appeal and

        “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Faulls, 821

        F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016).

               We have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified no

        potentially meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of Piper’s valid appellate

        waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Piper’s appeal in part

        and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and affirm the remainder

        of the district court’s judgment.

               This court requires that counsel inform Piper, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Piper 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 Piper. 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 IN PART,
                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART

                                                      4