USCA4 Appeal: 25-4022 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER HILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:23-cr-00056-D-BM-1)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 4, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Helen Celeste Smith, Apex, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Katherine Simpson Englander, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4022 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Hill pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, five

kilograms or more of cocaine, and a quantity of heroin, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,

in violation of § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Hill to 204 months’

imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Hill’s counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), stating that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Hill’s sentence is procedurally

reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Hill has not filed a pro se supplemental

brief. The Government moves to dismiss Hill’s appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in

his plea agreement. We grant the Government’s motion in part, dismiss the appeal in part,

and affirm in part.

“Where the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and the defendant has

not alleged a breach of the plea agreement, we will enforce a valid appeal waiver where

the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. McGrath,

(4th Cir. 2020). “A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and

intelligently agreed to waive the right to appeal.” Soloff, 993 F.3d at 243 (citation

modified). “To determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, we examine the

totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well

as the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the terms of the plea

agreement.” United States v. Thornsbury,

(4th Cir. 2012) (citation

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4022 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

modified). “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).

Our review of the record confirms that Hill knowingly and intelligently waived his

right to appeal his sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore

conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issue counsel

raises falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.

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 Hill’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 Hill, in writing, of the right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hill 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 Hill. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4022 Doc: 35 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

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

4