4th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NIKONDA TAYE INGRAM

April 27, 2026 ·25-4400 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Nikonda Taye Ingram's conviction and sentence after finding his plea agreement waiver of appeal rights was valid and knowing. The court dismissed the appeal on issues covered by the waiver and found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside that scope following an Anders review.

Nikonda Taye Ingram pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of federal statutes. The district court imposed a sentence of 120 months' imprisonment, varying below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Ingram subsequently appealed, but his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Ingram's written plea agreement contained a valid waiver of the right to appeal. Ingram did not file a pro se supplemental brief but requested the court review the validity of the appeal waiver itself.

The court applied de novo review to determine the enforceability of the appellate waiver. The legal standard requires that a waiver be valid and that the appealed issue fall within its scope. A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it, determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's experience, education, and understanding of the plea agreement. The court noted that when a district court questions a defendant during a Rule 11 hearing regarding an appeal waiver and the record shows the defendant understood the import of his concessions, the waiver is generally held valid. The Fourth Circuit's review of the record confirmed that Ingram knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Furthermore, in accordance with Anders, the court reviewed the entire record and found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of the valid waiver.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed regarding all issues covered by the waiver. The decision reinforces the enforceability of plea agreement waivers when the procedural safeguards of Rule 11 are met. Counsel is now required to inform Ingram in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If Ingram requests a petition but counsel believes it would be frivolous, counsel may move to withdraw from representation.