United States v. Karime Williams ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 24-4237      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 3
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 24-4237
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KARIME PERCIVAL WILLIAMS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
    Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00398-WO-1)
    Submitted: November 19, 2024                                Decided: November 22, 2024
    Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ON BRIEF: Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4237      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/22/2024      Pg: 2 of 3
    PER CURIAM:
    Karime Percival Williams appeals his convictions and the 180-month sentence
    imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to
    distribute para-fluorofentanyl and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, both in
    violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 
    18 U.S.C. § 2
    . Counsel has filed a brief
    in accordance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), indicating that he has found
    no potentially meritorious issues for appeal. Williams has not filed a pro se supplemental
    brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss the
    appeal based on the appellate waiver in Williams’ plea agreement. As explained below,
    we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
    We first conclude that, with certain exceptions inapplicable here, Williams has
    waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. A defendant may, in a valid plea
    agreement, waive the right to appeal under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    . See United States v. Wiggins,
    
    905 F.2d 51
    , 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court reviews 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
    thereof. United States v. Blick, 
    408 F.3d 162
    , 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
    An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the
    waiver. 
    Id. at 169
    . “To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed
    to waive his appellate rights, 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.” United States v. Carter, 
    87 F.4th 217
    , 224 (4th Cir. 2023).
    “Generally, . . . if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-4237      Doc: 25         Filed: 11/22/2024      Pg: 3 of 3
    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.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation
    marks omitted). Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, we conclude that
    Williams knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and understood the waiver.
    We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, in part, and dismiss the
    appeal as to all issues falling within the scope of the broad appeal waiver in Williams’ plea
    agreement. In accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the entire
    record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the
    appellate waiver and have found none. Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion,
    in part, as to any issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm the
    criminal judgment in part.
    This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his right to petition
    the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams requests that a
    petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
    may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
    state that a copy thereof was served on Williams. 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 in the decisional process.
    DISMISSED IN PART,
    AFFIRMED IN PART
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 24-4237

Filed Date: 11/22/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/26/2024