USCA4 Appeal: 25-4135 Doc: 42 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD KEITH PERKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:24-cr-00158-1)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 21, 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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Judson Campbell MacCallum, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 25-4135 Doc: 42 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Edward Keith Perkins pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to attempted

possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of

. The

district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment. 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 Perkins’s sentence is procedurally

and substantively reasonable. Perkins has filed a pro se supplemental brief, arguing that

the Government breached the plea agreement by proffering evidence of relevant conduct

at sentencing that was not stipulated to in the agreement. The Government moves to

dismiss Perkins’s appeal pursuant to 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) (citation

modified).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4135 Doc: 42 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

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

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

his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore

conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. The sentencing issues raised in the

Anders brief fall squarely within the waiver’s scope. Furthermore, contrary to Perkins’s

argument in his supplemental brief, the Government made no promises regarding the scope

of relevant conduct applicable at sentencing, and there is no other evidence that the

Government breached the terms of the plea agreement.

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

found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Perkins’s valid

appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and

dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and

otherwise affirm.

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

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

3