USCA4 Appeal: 21-4720 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4720

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN SHERMAN WESTMORELAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00486-CCE-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret McCall Reece, Special 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4720 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

John Sherman Westmoreland pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in

violation of

(g)(1), 924(a). The district court sentenced Westmoreland to

120 months of imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious

issues for appeal but questioning the validity and scope of Westmoreland’s appellate

waiver and the reasonableness of Westmoreland’s sentence. Although notified of his right

to do so, Westmoreland has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has

moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in Westmoreland’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,

(4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is “knowing and

voluntary.”

To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we consider

the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant,

his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.”

United States v. McCoy,

(4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Generally, “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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4720 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/28/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

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

(internal

quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record confirms that Westmoreland knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence, with limited exceptions not

applicable here. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that

the issue counsel raises falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.

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 Westmoreland’s appellate

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 district

court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Westmoreland, in writing, of the

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If

Westmoreland 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

Westmoreland.

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

3