USCA4 Appeal: 25-4146 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

URAIN ALEXANDER ROBINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cr-00117-HEH-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 22, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Michael C. Moore, WILLIAM J. DINKIN, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel J. Honold, Alexandria, Virginia, Ellen H. Theisen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4146 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Urain Alexander Robinson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession

with intent to distribute and distribution of 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance

containing a detectable amount of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Robinson to 120 months’

imprisonment, an upward departure from 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 Robinson’s

sentence is substantively reasonable. Robinson 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 Robinson’s plea agreement. Robinson opposes

the motion, arguing that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to appeal his

sentence. 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.”

“A

waiver is generally valid if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of

appellate rights during a properly conducted [Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 11

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4146 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the

waiver.” United States v. Smith,

(4th Cir. 2025) (alteration and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Although the district court’s questioning about the appellate waiver in Robinson’s

plea agreement could have been clearer, under the totality of the circumstances, we

conclude that Robinson knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his

conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not relevant 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.

Robinson’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 Robinson 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 district court did not plainly err in accepting Robinson’s plea.

Any omissions from the Rule 11 hearing did not affect Robinson’s substantial rights, and

the district court properly found that Robinson’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 Robinson’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 Robinson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4146 Doc: 29 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

United States for further review. If Robinson 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 Robinson.

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