USCA4 Appeal: 25-4109 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DORIAN SCOTT BURKS, a/k/a Cash,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:24-cr-00040-GMG-RWT-1)

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

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

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Diana Stavroulakis, Weirton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lara Kay Omps- Botteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4109 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Dorian Scott Burks pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute five grams or more of

methamphetamine hydrochloride, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and

846. The district court sentenced him to 262 months’ imprisonment and five years of

supervised release. 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: (1) the appellate waiver provision in Burks’s plea agreement is

enforceable, (2) the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, and (3) Burks’s guilty

plea was valid. Burks filed a pro se supplemental brief, alleging that counsel was

ineffective for failing to request a suppression hearing regarding geofence technology, his

plea was not knowing and voluntary, there was an insufficient factual basis for his plea,

and the sentence imposed was unreasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss

Burks’s appeal as barred by the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We dismiss in part

and affirm 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

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4109 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 4

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). In addition, when a defendant contests the validity of a guilty plea for the first

time on appeal, we review the challenge only for plain error. United States v. King,

(4th Cir. 2024).

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

11 hearing, confirms that Burks’s guilty plea is valid and supported by a sufficient factual

basis. See McCoy,

(holding we may review challenge to factual basis

despite appellate waiver). Moreover, Burks knowingly and intelligently waived his right

to appeal his conviction and sentence, excepting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

and prosecutorial misconduct. We therefore conclude that the appellate waiver is valid and

enforceable. Burks’s challenges to his sentence fall squarely within the scope of the

waiver. However, in his pro se brief, Burks asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, which

falls outside the scope of his appeal waiver. We conclude that no ineffective assistance

appears conclusively on the record, and decline to consider the issue on direct appeal. See

United States v. Freeman,

(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Rather, this is an

issue better raised on collateral review so that Burks can “further develop the record” with

respect to this claim.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record, including the issues

raised in Burks’s pro se supplemental brief, in this case and have found no potentially

meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Burks’s valid appellate waiver.

Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal in part and dismiss

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4109 Doc: 34 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 4 of 4

the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We affirm the district court’s judgment

as to any issue not encompassed by the waiver.

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

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

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

4