USCA4 Appeal: 23-4694 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4694

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSE JAMES WILSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cr-00009-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: September 26, 2024 Decided: December 31, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Belinda A. Haynie, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew R. Cogar, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4694 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Jesse James Wilson appeals his convictions and the 248-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea, pursuant to his plea agreement, to possession with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of

(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)(viii), and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking

crime, in violation of

(c)(1)(A)(i). Wilson’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 erred in denying

Wilson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the firearm offense. Wilson did not file a

pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his 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 Wilson’s

guilty plea is valid, that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that

the waiver is valid and enforceable.

Wilson’s claim that he could withdraw his guilty plea for no reason pursuant to

Rule 11(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is without merit. See United

States v. Battle,

(4th Cir. 2007). Because this particular claim may

fall outside the scope of a valid appeal waiver, we affirm. We conclude that Wilson’s claim

that the district court erred in finding no fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4694 Doc: 25 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

pursuant to Rule 11(d)(2) is within the scope of the valid and enforceable appeal waiver.

See United States v. Attar,

, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1994).

Finally, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Anders and have identified

no other potentially meritorious issues that fall outside the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Wilson’s appeal as to all issues

within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the criminal judgment.

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

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Wilson 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 Wilson. 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

3