Court Opinion

ID: 9831309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:29.719415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:18.455259
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699      Doc: 25         Filed: 08/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4699

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JOHN LEE SAUNDERS, III,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00186-WO-1)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Todd A. Smith, SMITH GILES PLLC, Graham, North Carolina, for
        Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699      Doc: 25         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               John Saunders, III pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession

        of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court sentenced him to 78 months’ imprisonment. On

        appeal, counsel 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 the district

        court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Saunders’ guilty plea, whether

        Saunders validly waived his right to appeal, and whether Saunders’ sentence is

        procedurally and substantively reasonable.       Although notified of his right to do so,

        Saunders has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss

        the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Saunders’ plea agreement. We affirm in part

        and dismiss in part.

               Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with the

        defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the

        charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum

        possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by

        pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the

        defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not

        result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim.

        P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of the court’s compliance with Rule 11, we

        “accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699        Doc: 25          Filed: 08/31/2023       Pg: 3 of 4

        colloquy with the defendant.”          United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 295

        (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Because Saunders did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy

        of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622

        (4th Cir. 2016). To establish plain error, Saunders must establish that “(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. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have

        reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and discern no error, plain or otherwise. We therefore

        conclude that Saunders’ guilty plea is valid.

               “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

        enforceable” and “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).         An appellate waiver is valid if the

        defendant enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by

        considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id.       “Generally though, if a district court

        questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 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).

               Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule

        11 hearing, confirms that Saunders knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699      Doc: 25         Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore

        conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. The remainder of the claims raised in

        the Anders brief fall 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

        waiver’s scope.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore 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 Saunders, in writing, of the 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, 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 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 IN PART,
                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART

                                                     4