USCA4 Appeal: 24-4146 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LADRALE ANTONIO PUTNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:21-cr-00056-EWH-LRL-1)

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Decided: October 25, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, Alexandria, Virginia, Peter Gail Osyf, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4146 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ladrale Antonio Putney appeals his convictions and the 240-month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute heroin and

fentanyl, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon, in violation of

(g)(1). On appeal, Putney’s counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), asserting that there are

no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court properly

denied Putney’s motion to suppress. Although notified of his right to do so, Putney has

not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government now moves to dismiss the appeal

as barred by the appeal waiver included in Putney’s plea agreement. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Initially, Putney’s appeal waiver does not prevent him from raising a colorable

challenge to the validity of his guilty plea. See United States v. Attar,

, 732-33

& n.2 (4th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. McCoy,

(4th Cir. 2018)

(holding that defendant’s valid appeal waiver did not preclude claim that plea lacked

sufficient factual basis). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a

colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that he understands, the

nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty, any mandatory minimum penalty, the

maximum penalty he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco,

(4th Cir. 1991). The court

also must ensure that the defendant’s plea is voluntary and supported by an independent

factual basis. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), (3). Because Putney did not preserve any claim

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4146 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

of error in the plea proceedings, we review the adequacy of the plea colloquy for plain

error. United States v. Vonn,

(2002); see Henderson v. United States,

(2013) (describing standard).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Putney’s guilty plea was

knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact. For this reason, and

because Putney’s plea agreement did not reserve the right to challenge the district court’s

suppression ruling, we conclude that Putney has waived his suppression argument. See

United States v. Buster,

(4th Cir. 2022) (explaining that a guilty plea, if

valid and unconditional, “waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings conducted

prior to entry of the plea” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore affirm

Putney’s convictions.

Next, we review the validity of Putney’s appeal waiver de novo. United States v.

Thornsbury,

(4th Cir. 2012). An appeal waiver “preclude[s] a defendant

from appealing a specific issue if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and the

issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Archie,

(4th Cir. 2014). A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if he agrees to the

waiver “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan,

(4th

Cir. 2010). “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

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

.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4146 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

Our review of the record confirms that Putney knowingly and intelligently executed

the appeal waiver, the terms of which preclude Putney from appealing his convictions and

whatever sentence the district court imposed. Thus, we conclude that the waiver precludes

Putney from raising any issue that falls 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 grant the Government’s motion to

dismiss in part, dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, and affirm the

remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Putney, in writing, of

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

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 Putney.

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