United States v. Nikonda Ingram

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-4400
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4400 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NIKONDA TAYE INGRAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:24-cr-00352-TDS-18)

Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rebecca A. Olla, LAW OFFICE OF REBECCA A. OLLA, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4400 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Nikonda Taye Ingram pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846.

The district court varied below Ingram’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and

imposed a sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Ingram’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. Although notified

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

has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by Ingram’s waiver of the right to appeal

included in the plea agreement. In response, Ingram asks that we review the validity of the

appeal waiver. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability” and “will

enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within its scope.”

United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). “[A]n

appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it.” Id. at

224. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we look to the totality of

the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience, conduct, educational background

and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms.” Id. “When a district court questions

a defendant during a Rule 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that

the defendant understood the import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the

waiver is valid.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). Our review

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4400 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

of the record confirms that Ingram knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal

his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here.

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

have found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the valid waiver’s scope. We

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

issues covered by the waiver. We otherwise affirm.

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

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