USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4367
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO XAVIER WILSON, a/k/a Push It,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00986-TLW-7)
Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 25, 2023
Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Justin M. Kata, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin Neale
Garner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Xavier Wilson pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846. The district court sentenced
him to 175 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 Wilson’s guilty plea is valid and whether his sentence is
reasonable. Wilson was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has
not done so. The Government moves to dismiss Wilson’s appeal pursuant to the appellate
waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is
enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls
within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant
enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the
totality of the circumstances.” Id. “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).
Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, confirms that Wilson knowingly and intelligently waived his right
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We
therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the
waiver’s scope, including the sentencing issue raised by Anders counsel.
The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our review pursuant to Anders of
the validity of the guilty plea. See id. at 364. We therefore deny in part the Government’s
motion to dismiss. Because Wilson did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the
adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621,
622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018)
(discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Wilson
entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported the plea
and all elements of his offense, and that his guilty plea is valid. See United States v.
DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Wilson’s valid appellate
waiver. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope and
affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel
inform Wilson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States
for further review. If Wilson 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
Wilson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4367 Doc: 44 Filed: 05/25/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
4