United States v. England Adams

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4354 Doc: 29 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ENGLAND EUGENE ADAMS, a/k/a E, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00764-MGL-5)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Coble Major, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4354 Doc: 29 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: England Eugene Adams appeals his convictions and the 72-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846; and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), identifying multiple issues for this court’s review but ultimately averring that Adams’ plea was knowing and voluntary and conceding that there are no potentially meritorious issues for appeal. Adams has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite receiving notice of his right to do so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Adams’ plea agreement. As explained below, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We first conclude that, with certain exceptions inapplicable here, Adams has waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. See United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court reviews the validity of an appeal waiver de novo and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope thereof.

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).

An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the waiver. Id. at 169. “To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive his appellate rights, 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.” United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023).

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4354 Doc: 29 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

“Generally, . . . 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, we conclude that Adams knowingly and voluntarily entered his guilty plea and understood the waiver.

We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, in part, and dismiss the appeal as to all issues falling within the scope of the broad appeal waiver in Adams’ plea agreement. In accordance with our obligations under Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the appeal waiver and have found none. Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion, in part, as to any issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm the criminal judgment in part.

This court requires that counsel inform Adams, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Adams requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Adams. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART