United States v. Tony Moore, 671 F. App'x 189

Tony Lamont Moore pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and distribution/possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841.
He entered a plea agreement that included a broad appellate-waiver provision.
Moore was sentenced below the advisory Guidelines range to 148 months’ imprisonment.
Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious issues but questioning substantive reasonableness of the sentence; Moore did not file a pro se brief.
The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore validly and knowingly waived his appellate rights	Moore (implicitly) challenges sentence reasonableness despite waiver	Government argues waiver is valid and bars appeal	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; appeal barred
Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable	Counsel questions substantive reasonableness of 148-month sentence	Government points to waiver and no preserved challenge	Court found sentence issue falls within waiver and raised no meritorious, outside-waiver issues; dismissed appeal

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for appointed counsel’s brief when no meritorious issues exist)
United States v. Archie, 771 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2014) (defendant may waive appellate rights in plea agreement; scope of waiver governs appealability)
United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (valid waiver requires knowing and intelligent agreement)
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (review of validity of appellate waiver is de novo)