United States v. William Birdsall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-4463
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4463 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM JOHN BIRDSALL,

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-00022-GMG-RWT-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Aaron D Moss, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kimberley DeAnne Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4463 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

William John Birdsall pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a). The district court sentenced Birdsall to the statutory maximum sentence of 240

months’ imprisonment and he now appeals. Birdsall’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues

for appeal but questioning whether the sentence is reasonable. The Government has moved

to dismiss the appeal based on the waiver of appellate rights in Birdsall’s plea agreement.

For the following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Cohen, 888

F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 2018). We will enforce a waiver if it is valid and the issue being

appealed falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151, 156

(4th Cir. 2018). A defendant’s waiver of appellate rights is valid if he entered it “knowingly

and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). We

determine whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive his rights to

appeal “by reference to the totality of the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). “Generally, though, if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver

of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that

the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United

States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We have reviewed the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing and

conclude that Birdsall knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and waived his right to

appeal and that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Moreover, the issue counsel seeks to

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4463 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

raise on appeal falls squarely within the scope of Birdsall’s appellate waiver. Accordingly,

we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Birdsall’s appeal as to all issues within the

waiver’s scope and, having identified no potentially meritorious issues that would fall

outside the scope of Birdsall’s valid appellate waiver, we affirm the remainder of the

district court’s judgment.

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

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