US v. Dale Williams, No. 21-4501 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-4501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DALE KEITH WILLIAMS, a/k/a Black, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (7:20-cr-00083-M-1) Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: June 30, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Robert L. Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dale Keith Williams pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Williams to 78 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Williams’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the validity of Williams’ guilty plea. Although notified of his right to do so, Williams did not file a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Williams’ plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). Upon review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Williams knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope, including the sentencing challenge raised in Williams’ response to the motion to dismiss. The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our review pursuant to Anders of the validity of the guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss. Because Williams did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing 2 for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing plain error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Williams entered his guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, that a factual basis supported the plea, and that his guilty plea is valid. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Williams’ valid appellate waiver. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issues within the waiver’s scope and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Williams, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Williams requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Williams. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
