United States v. Handrikus Webb

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 24-4454
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4454 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4454

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HANDRIKUS LYKEIN DONTAE WEBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (8:23-cr-00753-DCC-1)

Submitted: April 20, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026

Before HARRIS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Howard W. Anderson III, Pendleton, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrea Gwen Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4454 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Handrikus Lykein Dontae Webb pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to

distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and

possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8), (e). In his plea agreement, Webb agreed to waive the right to

challenge his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, except based on claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and future changes in the law

that affect his sentence. The district court sentenced Webb to 64 months’ imprisonment

and 3 years’ supervised release. A mandatory condition of Webb’s supervised release

directs that he refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance and submit to certain

drug tests. An additional condition of Webb’s supervised release directs that he submit to

substance abuse testing to determine whether he used a prohibited substance, contribute to

the cost of such program “not to exceed the amount determined reasonable” by the

Probation Office’s “[s]liding [s]cale for [s]ervices,” and cooperate in securing “any

applicable third-party payment” (“the additional condition”).

On appeal from the criminal judgment, Webb’s 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 raising as issues whether Webb’s prison term is substantively unreasonable

and whether the additional condition is improper because, with it, the district court

unconstitutionally delegated a core judicial function to the Probation Office. Webb was

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Invoking

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4454 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

the appeal waiver in Webb’s plea agreement, the Government has moved to dismiss the

appeal. Webb’s counsel has filed a response to the motion.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive his appellate rights. United

States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217, 221 (4th Cir. 2014). Where, as here, the Government seeks

enforcement of an appeal waiver and there is no claim that it breached its obligations under

the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver to preclude an appeal of a specific issue if

the waiver is valid and the issue falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Soloff,

993 F.3d 240, 243 (4th Cir. 2021). Whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal

is a question of law we review de novo. Id. The validity of an appeal waiver depends on

whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. United

States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018). To determine whether a waiver is

valid, we examine “the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct

of the defendant, his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and

its terms.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the brief filed by Webb’s counsel, and the

submissions relative to the Government’s dismissal effort and conclude that Webb entered

into the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily. By the terms of the waiver, Webb is not

precluded from challenging his sentence based on subsequent changes in the law. While

this appeal was pending, this court held in United States v. Jones that the district court did

not plainly err in sentencing a defendant when it imposed a special condition of supervised

release requiring him to submit to substance abuse testing to determine whether he had

used prohibited substances and contribute to the cost of such program, despite defendant’s

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4454 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

argument that the condition unconstitutionally delegated a core judicial function to the

Probation Office. 157 F.4th 375, 377-78 (4th Cir. 2025). Webb’s counsel invokes Jones

to support his unconstitutional delegation challenge, but Jones does not call Webb’s

sentence into question. In addition, counsel’s substantive unreasonableness challenge to

Webb’s prison term does not implicate any subsequent change in the law. The challenges

counsel raises fall squarely within the scope of Webb’s valid appeal waiver.

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

have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s

motion to dismiss this appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Webb, in writing,

of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Webb

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 Webb.

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