USCA4 Appeal: 23-4606 Doc: 44 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4606

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN ARTHUR WIGGINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:22-cr-00430-PX-1)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 9, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mirriam Z. Seddiq, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Kelly O. Hayes, Christopher Michael Sarma, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4606 Doc: 44 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

John Arthur Wiggins pled guilty, pursuant to a written Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C)

plea agreement, to felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession with intent

to distribute controlled substances, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug

trafficking crime. Wiggins’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), questioning whether the district court should have accepted the plea

agreement. Wiggins has not filed a pro se supplemental brief after being advised of his

right to do so.

The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that

Wiggins’ appeal is barred by the appeal waiver included in the plea agreement. We review

de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. United States v. Cohen,

(4th

Cir. 2018). 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 waiver's scope. United States v. Manigan,

(4th

Cir. 2010).

A defendant validly waives his appeal rights if he agreed to the waiver “knowingly

and intelligently.”

To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, “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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4606 Doc: 44 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 3 of 4

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

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we

conclude that Wiggins knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and he does

not argue otherwise. Moreover, counsel does not provide any reason the district court

should have rejected the plea agreement. To the extent counsel bases this claim on a

challenge to the voluntariness of the plea agreement, the waiver would not bar this claim.

See

. However, we find that Wiggins’ plea was knowing and voluntary based on

our review of the record.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no

meritorious issues for appeal that fall outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore

grant the Government's motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues

within the waiver’s scope. We deny the motion to dismiss in part and affirm the remainder

of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Wiggins, in

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

If Wiggins 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 Wiggins.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4606 Doc: 44 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 4 of 4

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