United States v. Larento Grady, 692 F. App'x 164

Grady pled guilty to distributing cocaine base (21 U.S.C. § 841) and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon/aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922(g)).
District court sentenced Grady to 151 months' imprisonment following the plea.
Grady’s counsel filed an Anders brief, stating no meritorious appellate issues but questioning career‑offender designation at sentencing.
The Government moved to dismiss the appeal under the appeal‑waiver in Grady’s plea agreement.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the plea agreement and Rule 11 colloquy and found the waiver knowing and intelligent.
The court conducted an Anders review, found no non‑waivable meritorious issues, and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of appeal waiver	Grady contends sentencing challenge should be reviewed and waiver may not bar Anders review	Government contends plea waiver bars appellate review of sentencing challenge	Waiver was knowing and intelligent; appeal falls within its scope and is barred
Requirement to conduct Anders review	Grady urges that Anders review requires the court to consider the sentencing issue despite waiver	Government says waiver makes dismissal appropriate; court should still do Anders review as needed	Court performed Anders review and found no non‑waivable issues outside the waiver
Whether career‑offender sentencing claim is reviewable	Grady (via Anders brief) questions career‑offender status at sentencing	Government asserts sentencing arguments waived by plea agreement	Court dismissed appeal; claim barred by valid waiver
Counsel obligations post‑dismissal	N/A	Government asks court to ensure counsel informs Grady of Supreme Court petition rights	Court ordered counsel to notify Grady in writing about certiorari rights and procedures to seek leave to withdraw if a petition would be frivolous

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel must file brief identifying any nonfrivolous issues when seeking to withdraw)
United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of validity and effect of appeal waiver)
United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 2016) (enforce waiver if valid and issue is within waiver’s scope)
United States v. Davis, 689 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2012) (waiver valid if knowing and intelligent under totality of circumstances)
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (Rule 11 colloquy questioning about waiver supports finding waiver valid)
United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005) (describes categories of nonwaivable issues)