Background
Nikonda Taye Ingram pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of Section twenty-one United States Code Sections eight hundred forty-one subsection one B and Section eight hundred forty-six. The district court varied below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of one hundred twenty months imprisonment. Ingram’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, while the Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on Ingram’s waiver of the right to appeal.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability. The court found that Ingram knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence based on the totality of the circumstances, including his understanding of the plea agreement terms during the Rule eleven hearing. The court confirmed that the waiver was valid and that the issues appealed fell within its scope. After reviewing the entire record under Anders, the court found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the waiver’s scope.
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, 87 F.4th 217, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2023)
What it means going forward
The appeal is dismissed as to all issues covered by the valid waiver, and the sentence of one hundred twenty months imprisonment is affirmed.