United States v. Kofi Orleans-Lindsay

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-4021
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4021 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KOFI ORLEANS-LINDSAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00026-GMG-RWT-10)

Submitted: January 27, 2026 Decided: February 27, 2026

Before GREGORY, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lara Kay Omps-Botteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4021 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Kofi Orleans-Lindsay pled guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) written

plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute eutylone,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846. The district court imposed a

downward variant sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised

release. Orleans-Lindsay’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal but questioning

whether the 48-month sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Counsel also

observes that Orleans-Lindsay validly waived his appellate rights. Although notified of

his right to do so, Orleans-Lindsay has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The

Government moves to dismiss Orleans-Lindsay’s appeal as barred by the appeal waiver in

his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We review an appeal waiver de novo to determine its enforceability. United

States v. Smith, 134 F.4th 248, 255-57 (4th Cir. 2025). “A waiver is valid if the defendant

knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.” Id. at 257 (citation

modified); United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023) (requiring evaluation

of “the totality of the circumstances”). “Generally . . . , if a district court questions a

defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the

record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the

waiver is valid [and enforceable].” Carter, 87 F.4th at 224 (citation modified). “When[, as

here,] the Government invokes an appeal waiver, we enforce it if it is valid and if the issue

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4021 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver.” Smith, 134 F.4th at 257 (citation

modified).

Upon review of the record and considering the totality of the circumstances, we

conclude that Orleans-Lindsay knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. And

Orleans-Lindsay’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence falls squarely within the

scope of his valid appeal waiver.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal that are not barred by the appeal waiver. We

therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to

any issues that fall within the valid waiver’s scope. We also deny the motion in part and

affirm as to any issue not encompassed by the waiver. This court requires that counsel

inform Orleans-Lindsay, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If Orleans-Lindsay 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 Orleans-Lindsay.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART