USCA4 Appeal: 25-4120 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRICK DION TYRON GRIFFIN, a/k/a Tay,

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-00020-TSK-MJA-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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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: L. Richard Walker, First Assistant Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jordan Vincent Palmer, Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher James Prezioso, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Eleanor F. Hurney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4120 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Cedrick Dion Tyson Griffin pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession

with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of fentanyl, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court

sentenced Griffin to 168 months’ imprisonment, within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range. 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

Griffin’s guilty plea is valid. Griffin was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but he has not done so. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant

to the appellate waiver in Griffin’s plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

“We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability” and “will

enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within its scope.”

United States v. Carter,

(4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “[A]n appellate waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed

to it.”

. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we look to

the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience, conduct,

educational background and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms.”

“When

a district court questions a defendant during a [Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 11

hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows that the defendant understood the

import of his concessions, we generally will hold that the waiver is valid.” United States

v. Boutcher,

(4th Cir. 2021).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4120 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

Our review of the record confirms that Griffin knowingly and voluntarily waived

his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions. We therefore

conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable.

Griffin’s appellate waiver, however, does not bar our consideration of the validity

of his guilty plea. See United States v. Taylor-Sanders,

(4th Cir. 2023).

Because Griffin did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, we review any challenge to

the validity of the plea for plain error. United States v. Kemp,

(4th Cir.

2023). We conclude that the magistrate judge did not err, plainly or otherwise, in accepting

Griffin’s plea. The magistrate judge substantially complied with Rule 11 and properly

found that Griffin’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual

basis. See Taylor-Sanders,

.

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

found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside of Griffin’s valid appellate waiver. We

therefore grant the Government’s motion in part and dismiss the appeal as to the issues

within the scope of the waiver. We otherwise affirm the judgment. This court requires

that counsel inform Griffin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Griffin 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 Griffin.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4120 Doc: 31 Filed: 10/21/2025 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