USCA4 Appeal: 23-4577 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4030

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

D’ANDRE PRESTON, a/k/a Whiteboy, a/k/a Whites,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 23-4577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY BUTLER, a/k/a Sags, a/k/a Little Dick, a/k/a Gotti,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00137-JRR-31; 1:19-cr-00137-JRR-4)

Submitted: July 9, 2024 Decided: September 17, 2024 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4577 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 5

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

No. 23-4030, affirmed in part and dismissed in part; No. 23-4577, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Steven M. Klepper, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant Preston; Justin T. Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant Butler. John Walter Sipple, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4577 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, D’Andre Preston and Gregory Butler pleaded guilty,

pursuant to plea agreements, to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise, in

violation of

(d). Counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues. Neither Preston nor

Butler submitted a pro se supplemental brief. The Government moves to dismiss on the

ground that Preston’s appeal is barred by the appeal waiver included in the plea agreement

and Butler’s notice of appeal is untimely. We grant in part the motion to dismiss Preston’s

appeal and otherwise affirm his criminal judgment, and grant the motion to dismiss Butler’s

appeal.

We review de novo the validity of Preston’s appeal waiver. United States v. Carter,

(4th Cir. 2023). Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce the

appeal waiver and has not breached the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is

valid and the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver. United States v.

Manigan,

(4th Cir. 2010). A defendant validly waives his appeal rights

if he agrees to the waiver “knowingly and voluntarily.” Carter,

. To

determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “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.”

“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.”

(internal quotation marks omitted).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4577 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 4 of 5

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of Preston’s Rule 11 hearing,

we conclude that Preston knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. But

Preston’s appeal waiver does not bar consideration of the validity of his guilty plea. United

States v. Taylor-Sanders,

(4th Cir. 2023). Because he did not move in

the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the plea colloquy for plain error.

United States v. Kemp,

(4th Cir. 2023). Having considered the record,

we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in accepting Preston’s guilty plea.

While an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that implicates the validity of a guilty plea

is not barred by an appeal waiver, such claims are generally not cognizable on direct

appeal—and instead must be reserved for a

motion—unless the

“attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the face of the record.” United

States v. Faulls,

(4th Cir. 2016). The record here does not

conclusively show that counsel provided ineffective assistance. Accordingly, as to

Preston’s appeal, we grant in part the motion to dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered

by the appeal waiver, and deny the motion to dismiss, but affirm as to issues not precluded

by the appeal waiver.

In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 days after

the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a

showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of

up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Although the appeal

period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but rather a claim-processing rule,

United States v. Urutyan,

(4th Cir. 2009), “[w]hen the Government

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4577 Doc: 42 Filed: 09/17/2024 Pg: 5 of 5

promptly invokes the rule in response to a late-filed criminal appeal, we must dismiss,”

United States v. Oliver,

(4th Cir. 2017).

The district court entered judgment on March 16, 2023. Butler’s notice of appeal is

dated September 8, 2023, and was filed September 11, 2023. Because Butler failed to file

a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period and the Government

has promptly invoked the appeal’s untimeliness, see 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(2), we grant the

Government’s motion to dismiss Butler’s appeal as untimely.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the records in these cases and have

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to

dismiss in Appeal No. 23-4030 as to any issues falling within the scope of Preston’s

appellate waiver and affirm the remainder of the criminal judgment. As to Appeal No. 23-

4577, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss. This court requires that counsel

inform the Appellants, in writing, of their right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If either Appellant 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 the appropriate Appellant. 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.

No. 23-4030, AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; No. 23-4577, DISMISSED

5