United States v. Gregory Thompson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 1, 2026
• Docket: 25-4062
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4062 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4062

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY RASHUN THOMPSON, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, Chief District Judge. (6:23-cr-00448-TMC-2)

Submitted: May 26, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Everett E. McMillian, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4062 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Rashun Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment imposing

a sentence within his Guidelines range after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. In his plea agreement, Thompson waived the right to challenge his

conviction or sentence in any direct appeal, except for claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, or future changes in the law that affect his sentence.

On appeal, Thompson’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

asserting challenges to his appeal waiver and the district court’s sentencing procedure. The

Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Thompson’s appeal waiver.

Thompson opposes the motion. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

“We have consistently held that appellate waivers in valid plea agreements are

enforceable.” United States v. Soloff, 993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). “Plea agreements

are grounded in contract law, and as with any contract, each party is entitled to receive the

benefit of his bargain.” United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal

quotation marks omitted). But, there is “a ‘narrow class of claims that we have allowed a

defendant to raise on direct appeal despite a general waiver of appellate rights.’” United

States v. Moran, 70 F.4th 797, 802 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023).

“For example, [n]o appeal waiver . . . can bar a defendant’s right to challenge his

sentence as outside a statutorily prescribed maximum or based on a constitutionally

impermissible factor such as race.” United States v. Toebbe, 85 F.4th 190, 202 (4th Cir.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4062 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In such circumstances, we have explained, ‘the

errors allegedly committed by the district courts were errors that the defendants could not

have reasonably contemplated when the plea agreements were executed.’” Id. Moreover,

“the existence of such a waiver does not bar our review of the validity of the guilty plea

and plea waiver.” United States v. Taylor-Sanders, 88 F.4th 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2023).

We review the validity and effect of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v.

Lubkin, 122 F.4th 522, 526 (4th Cir. 2024). “Where ‘there is no claim that the United

States breached its obligations under the plea agreement,’ we enforce an appeal waiver if

the record shows (1) ‘that the waiver is valid’ and (2) ‘that the issue being appealed is

within the scope of the waiver.’” Id. “An appeal waiver is valid ‘if the defendant’s

agreement to the waiver was knowing and intelligent.’” Id.

“We look at the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ including the clarity of the waiver’s

text and ‘whether the district court sufficiently explained the waiver’ at the defendant’s

‘plea colloquy.’” Id. “In ‘the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a properly

conducted Rule 11 colloquy establishes the validity of the waiver.’” Id. “We use

traditional principles of contract law to determine whether an issue falls within the scope

of a valid waiver.” United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023).

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Thompson’s appeal waiver is valid;

his challenges to the waiver are without merit; and his sentencing procedure claim falls

within the scope of the waiver. Pursuant to Anders, we have also reviewed the record for

any potentially meritorious issues falling outside the waiver and have found none.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4062 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/01/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

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

affirm the district court’s judgment in part. This court requires that counsel inform

Thompson, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

further review. If Thompson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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

Thompson. 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