United States v. Roderick Brown, 661 F. App'x 793

Roderick L. Brown pleaded guilty in 2014 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine (based on 2007 conduct) and received a 26‑month sentence.
While serving that sentence, Brown pleaded guilty to a superseding indictment charging (1) conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and (2) conspiracy to commit money laundering for 2011–2012 conduct; he was sentenced to 120 months.
Brown moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for unjustifiable pre‑indictment delay; the district court denied the motion. He did not withdraw his guilty plea.
On appeal counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but raising whether the district court erred in denying dismissal for pre‑indictment delay; Brown also submitted a pro se supplemental brief.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the due process claim de novo, applied the two‑pronged Marion test (actual prejudice and prosecutor intent), and found Brown failed to show actual, substantial prejudice.
The court affirmed the judgment, concluding the plea and sentence procedures were proper and advising Anders procedures for potential Supreme Court review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre‑indictment delay violated due process	Brown: delay caused unjustifiable prejudice to his ability to defend	Government: Brown failed to show actual, substantial prejudice; delay justified or not shown to be intentional	Denied — Brown did not meet heavy burden to prove actual, substantial prejudice; no due process violation
Whether appellate review can proceed despite appeal waiver	Brown: waiver may bar appeal; raised in Anders brief	Government: sought not to enforce waiver so court must reach merits	Court reached merits because Government did not seek enforcement of waiver
Whether plea and Rule 11 colloquy/supporting procedures were proper	Brown: implied challenge via supplemental pro se brief	Government: plea complied with Rule 11; sentence lawful	Affirmed — plea hearing and sentence were proper
Whether Anders brief suffices for appeal	Counsel: no meritorious issues but raised delay claim under Anders	Court: must conduct independent review under Anders	Court conducted Anders review and found no meritorious issues

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duty to file brief identifying any arguable issues when seeking to withdraw)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (sets two‑pronged due process test for pre‑indictment delay)
United States v. Westbrooks, 780 F.3d 593 (Fourth Circuit: standard of review for due process claims)
United States v. Uribe‑Rios, 558 F.3d 347 (Fourth Circuit: two‑prong inquiry and burden for proving prejudice)
Shealey v. ... (Note: opinion cites Shealey, 641 F.3d 627) (Fourth Circuit: definition of "actual prejudice" requirement)
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (Fourth Circuit: enforcement of appeal waivers when Government seeks enforcement)