USCA4 Appeal: 24-4237 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4237

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KARIME PERCIVAL WILLIAMS,

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-00398-WO-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sophia L. Harvey, LIAO HARVEY PC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-4237 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Karime Percival Williams appeals his convictions and the 180-month sentence

imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to

distribute para-fluorofentanyl and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, both in

violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and

. Counsel has filed a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967), indicating that he has found

no potentially meritorious issues for appeal. Williams has not filed a pro se supplemental

brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss the

appeal based on the appellate waiver in Williams’ plea agreement. As explained below,

we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We first conclude that, with certain exceptions inapplicable here, Williams has

waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. A defendant may, in a valid plea

agreement, waive the right to appeal under

. See United States v. Wiggins,

(4th Cir. 1990). This court reviews 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

thereof. United States v. Blick,

(4th Cir. 2005).

An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the

waiver.

. “To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed

to waive his appellate rights, 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.” United States v. Carter,

(4th Cir. 2023).

“Generally, . . . if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4237 Doc: 25 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

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.”

(internal quotation

marks omitted). Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, we conclude that

Williams knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and understood the waiver.

We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, in part, and dismiss the

appeal as to all issues falling within the scope of the broad appeal waiver in Williams’ plea

agreement. In accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the

appellate waiver and have found none. Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion,

in part, as to any issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm the

criminal judgment in part.

This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of his right to petition

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Williams. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

3