USCA4 Appeal: 24-4521 Doc: 39 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-4521

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ILDIBERTO GONZALEZ, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (1:23-cr-00032-1)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 20, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Charles T. Berry, Kingmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jeremy Bryan Wolfe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4521 Doc: 39 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Ildiberto Gonzalez, Jr., pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

. The district

court sentenced Gonzalez to 168 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised

release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether

trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the application of a

Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for Gonzalez’s possession of a firearm and whether

the sentence is reasonable. Gonzalez did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being

notified of his right to do so. The Government has moved to dismiss Gonzalez’s appeal of

his sentence as barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and

dismiss in part.

“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is

enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue[s] being appealed

fall[ ] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher,

(4th

Cir. 2021) (citation modified). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant enters it

“knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality of

the circumstances.”

“Generally though, 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.” United States v. McCoy,

(4th Cir. 2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4521 Doc: 39 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule

11 hearing, confirms that Gonzalez knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal

his conviction and sentence, excepting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a

sentence above the Sentencing Guidelines range corresponding to an offense level of 40.

We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable, and the sentencing issues

counsel raise on appeal fall squarely within the scope of the waiver.

The waiver provision in the plea agreement does not preclude our review of

Gonzalez’s ineffective assistance claim. To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel,

Gonzalez “must show that counsel’s performance was [constitutionally] deficient” and

“that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington,

(1984). However, “[u]nless an attorney’s ineffectiveness conclusively

appears on the face of the record, [ineffective assistance] claims are not addressed on direct

appeal.” United States v. Faulls,

(4th Cir. 2016).

The record does not conclusively establish that counsel rendered ineffective

assistance by failing to object to the two-level enhancement for Gonzalez’s possession of

a firearm. Our review of the record shows that Gonzalez agreed to the stipulation of facts

in his plea agreement and reviewed the presentence report, which included information

regarding his possession of the firearm. Thus, we conclude that ineffective assistance of

counsel does not conclusively appear on the face of the record before us.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm in part, grant the

Government’s motion, and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the scope of the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4521 Doc: 39 Filed: 10/20/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

appellate waiver. This court requires that counsel inform Gonzalez, in writing, of the right

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

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