United States v. Andrew Sager

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-4669
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4669 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4669

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW SCOTT SAGER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00084-GMG-RWT-7)

Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 1, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Dallas F. Kratzer, III, Columbus, Ohio, Christopher G. Robinson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4669 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Scott Sager pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced him to 70 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 Sager’s

sentence is reasonable and whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Although

notified of his right to do so, Sager has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The

Government moves to dismiss Sager’s appeal as barred by the appeal waiver in his plea

agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

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

enforceable,” and 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) (citation modified). 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 [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) (citation

modified).

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

11 hearing, confirms that Sager knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty. In addition,

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4669 Doc: 28 Filed: 12/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

Sager knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence,

with limited exceptions. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

Furthermore, the sentencing challenge raised in the Anders brief falls squarely within the

waiver’s scope.

Sager’s claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance is excepted from the

waiver. However, because the record before us does not conclusively establish that Sager’s

counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Sager’s “ineffective assistance claim should be

raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 546

(4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified).

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

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Sager’s valid

appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and

dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We affirm the district court’s

judgment as to any issue not encompassed by the waiver.

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

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

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 3