United States v. James Walker ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
4