Court Opinion

ID: 9375087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:00:56.965474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.850674
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4061      Doc: 32         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4061

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        DWIGHT DELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a PK,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00254-D-1)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lynne Louise Reid, L. L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. David
        A. Bragdon, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4061       Doc: 32         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Dwight Dell Williams pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        distribution of a quantity of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of

        18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Williams

        below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 144 months’ imprisonment and 3 years

        of supervised release. On appeal, Williams’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

        v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning whether Williams’ sentence is substantively reasonable. Williams was

        informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The

        Government moves to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Williams’ plea

        agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and has not breached the

        plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls

        within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.

        2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the validity of an appeal waiver de

        novo. Id. “A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive

        the right to appeal.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “Generally though, if a district court questions a defendant

        regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the

        record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the

        waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4061        Doc: 32          Filed: 02/23/2023       Pg: 3 of 4

               Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we

        conclude that Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence,

        except for ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct claims. Moreover,

        the sentencing issue Williams raises on appeal falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.

        Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal

        as to all issues within the scope of the waiver.

               The waiver provisions, however, do not preclude our review of the validity of the

        guilty plea pursuant to Anders. See McCoy, 895 F.3d at 364. We therefore deny the

        Government’s motion to dismiss in part. Because Williams did not move in the district

        court to withdraw his guilty plea, the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. Id. 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.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied,

        143 S. Ct. 450 (2022).

               Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Williams entered his guilty plea

        knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the plea. See United States v.

        DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Discerning no plain error, we

        conclude that Williams’ guilty plea is valid.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Williams’ valid appeal

        waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as to all issues

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4061         Doc: 32      Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        within the scope of the waiver and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

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

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams 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 Williams.

               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