USCA4 Appeal: 24-4253 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALEXUS PAIGE TYSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:22-cr-00023-LKG-2)

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

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

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Gregory Dolin, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Darren Spencer Gardner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4253 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Alexus Paige Tyson seeks to appeal her conviction and the 15-month sentence

imposed following her guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to

commit wire and bank fraud, in violation of

. Tyson’s counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), asserting that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether plea counsel rendered ineffective

assistance, whether there was an adequate factual basis for Tyson’s plea, whether Tyson’s

sentence is reasonable, and whether the district court pronounced all the discretionary

conditions of Tyson’s supervised release. Tyson did not file a pro se supplemental brief

after being notified of her right to do so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal

as barred by the appeal waiver included in the plea agreement.

Where, as here, the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and the defendant

has not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and

the issues raised on appeal fall within its scope. United States v. Boutcher,

(4th Cir. 2021). Our review of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that Tyson

knowingly and intelligently waived her right to appeal and that the waiver is valid and

enforceable. Tyson’s challenge to the reasonableness of her sentence falls squarely within

the waiver’s scope.

Defense counsel raises several issues that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Our review of the record, however, reveals no reversible error. The record does not

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4253 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

conclusively show that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance. * See United States v.

Freeman,

(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). The factual basis included in

Tyson’s plea agreement, which Tyson agreed was accurate, is sufficient to support her

guilty plea. See United States v. Vinson,

(4th Cir. 2017) (discussing

elements of conspiracy to commit bank fraud); United States v. Burfoot,

(4th Cir. 2018) (discussing elements of conspiracy to commit wire fraud). And the district

court adequately pronounced the conditions of Tyson’s supervised release. See United

States v. Rogers,

(4th Cir. 2020).

Our review of the record in accordance with Anders revealed a clerical error in the

written judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Specifically, the district court ordered that

Tyson’s restitution “payments will begin 30 days after [Tyson’s] release from

incarceration,” but the written judgment says those payments will “commence when

[Tyson] is placed on supervised release.” We have identified no other potentially

meritorious issues that would fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we

grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Tyson’s appeal as to all issues within the

waiver’s scope, affirm the remainder of the criminal judgment, and remand for correction

of the clerical error in the judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Tyson, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Tyson requests that a petition be

* Accordingly, Tyson’s “ineffective assistance claim should be raised, if at all, in a

motion.” United States v. Kemp,

(4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4253 Doc: 27 Filed: 10/25/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

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 Tyson. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED

4