Court Opinion

ID: 9554427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 21:00:34.280181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:40.579854
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406      Doc: 38         Filed: 08/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4406

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JAMES WALKER, a/k/a X,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00307-1)

        Submitted: July 26, 2023                                          Decided: August 4, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: John A. Carr, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy Doyle
        Boggess, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406       Doc: 38          Filed: 08/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               James Walker pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to

        distribute cocaine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, and hydromorphone, in violation of 21

        U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced Walker to 186 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 court

        erred in denying Walker a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in calculating

        Walker’s criminal history category. Walker has filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting

        that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to investigate the

        incident that led to the denial of the reduction for acceptance of responsibility and by failing

        to object to the court’s consideration of Walker’s old prior convictions. The Government

        has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Walker’s plea

        agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

               We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver

        if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v.

        Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if

        he agreed to the waiver “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d

        621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant

        regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance

        with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the record shows that the defendant understood the waiver’s

        significance, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Thornsbury, 670

        F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review of the record confirms that Walker knowingly

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406      Doc: 38         Filed: 08/04/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. We therefore conclude that the

        waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issues counsel raises on appeal fall

        squarely within the scope of the waiver.

               Walker’s claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance fall outside of the

        scope of his appeal waiver. Unless the record conclusively establishes that counsel

        rendered ineffective assistance, however, such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.

        United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 507-08 (4th Cir. 2016). Because the present record

        does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to

        address these claims on direct appeal. Walker’s arguments are more appropriately raised,

        if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. United States v. Jordan, 952 F.3d 160, 163 n.1 (4th

        Cir. 2020).

               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 Walker’s appeal waiver. We

        therefore grant in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal as to all

        issues within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court

        requires that counsel inform Walker, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court

        of the United States for further review. If Walker 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 Walker. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4406      Doc: 38        Filed: 08/04/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        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