United States v. Javits Williams, 21-4132

Appellant Javits Williams pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to: possession with intent to distribute fentanyl; possession with intent to distribute ≥28 grams of cocaine base and other controlled substances; and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
The district court imposed concurrent sentences: 204 months on the drug counts and 120 months on the firearm count, for a total of 204 months’ imprisonment.
Williams’ appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating no nonfrivolous issues but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Williams was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not.
The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on Williams’ appellate-waiver in the plea agreement. Williams did not allege the plea agreement was breached.
The Fourth Circuit found the appellate waiver knowingly and intelligently made and enforceable, and held that challenging sentence reasonableness fell within the waiver’s scope, so it dismissed the appeal as to the sentence.
The court denied that part of the Government’s motion to dismiss that would bar a challenge to the validity of the plea itself, affirmed the judgment in other respects, and instructed counsel to inform Williams about the right to petition the Supreme Court.

Issue	Williams' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Williams can appeal the reasonableness of his sentence despite an appellate-waiver in the plea agreement	Williams (via Anders brief) questioned the sentence’s reasonableness	The Government moved to dismiss the sentencing appeal under the plea agreement’s appellate waiver	Waiver was valid and enforceable; sentencing challenge falls within waiver; appeal of the sentence dismissed
Whether the appellate waiver bars any challenge to the validity of the plea	Williams did not challenge plea validity on appeal	Government argued the waiver bars appellate review	Court denied the Government’s motion to the extent it would bar a challenge to plea validity; waiver does not preclude plea-validity challenges
Whether any non-waivable, meritorious issues exist outside the scope of the waiver under Anders review	Counsel presented no meritorious non-waived claims	Government urged dismissal where appropriate under the waiver	Court conducted Anders review, found no meritorious non-waived issues, and affirmed the judgment except as to the dismissed sentencing appeal

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (counsel may file a brief asserting the appeal is frivolous and the court must conduct an independent review)
United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2018) (appellate waiver does not bar a challenge to the validity of the plea itself)
United States v. Dillard, 891 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2018) (enforce waiver if valid and the appealed issue falls within its scope)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard for determining whether an appellate waiver was made knowingly and intelligently)