Opinion
24-4237
11-22-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARIME PERCIVAL WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: November 19, 2024
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-00398-WO-1)
ON BRIEF:
Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Karime Percival Williams appeals his convictions and the 180-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute para-fluorofentanyl and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), indicating that he has found no potentially meritorious issues for appeal. Williams has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in Williams' plea agreement. As explained below, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We first conclude that, with certain exceptions inapplicable here, Williams has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. See United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court reviews 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 thereof. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the waiver. Id. at 169. "To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive his appellate rights, we look to the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's experience, conduct, educational background and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms." United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023). "Generally, . . . 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." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, we conclude that Williams knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and understood the waiver.
We therefore grant the Government's motion to dismiss, in part, and dismiss the appeal as to all issues falling within the scope of the broad appeal waiver in Williams' plea agreement. In accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the appellate waiver and have found none. Accordingly, we deny the Government's motion, in part, as to any issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm the criminal judgment in part.
This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his 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 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.