United States v. James Walker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 4, 2023
• Docket: 21-4406
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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