USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4699
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN LEE SAUNDERS, III,
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-00186-WO-1)
Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023
Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Todd A. Smith, SMITH GILES PLLC, Graham, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Kyle David Pousson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4699 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
John Saunders, III pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court sentenced him to 78 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 district
court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Saunders’ guilty plea, whether
Saunders validly waived his right to appeal, and whether Saunders’ sentence is
procedurally and substantively reasonable. Although notified of his right to do so,
Saunders has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Saunders’ plea agreement. We affirm in part
and dismiss in part.
Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with the
defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the
charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum
possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by
pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the
defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not
result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of the court’s compliance with Rule 11, we
“accord deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
colloquy with the defendant.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 295
(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Saunders 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). To establish plain error, Saunders must establish that “(1) an error was
made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States
v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have
reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and discern no error, plain or otherwise. We therefore
conclude that Saunders’ guilty plea is valid.
“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 Rule 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 Rule
11 hearing, confirms that Saunders knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4699 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore
conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. The remainder of the claims raised in
the Anders brief fall within the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the
waiver’s scope.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. 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 Saunders, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Saunders 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 Saunders. 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
4