USCA4 Appeal: 25-4056 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID LAMONT HICKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cr-00069-JPB-JPM-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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: Mirriam Z. Seddiq, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Carly Cordaro Nogay, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4056 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

David Lamont Hicks pleaded guilty to distribution of methamphetamine, in

violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Hicks to 81

months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), questioning whether the

sentence is procedurally reasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal

with respect to all issues falling within the appeal waiver in Hicks’s 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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).

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

11 hearing, confirms that Hicks’s guilty plea is valid and Hicks knowingly and intelligently

waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, except for claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct not known at the time of the plea. We

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4056 Doc: 28 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and Hicks’s challenge to his

sentence falls squarely within the scope of that waiver.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion in

part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the scope of the appellate waiver. We

affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Hicks, in

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

If Hicks 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 Hicks.

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