Appeals – Waiver in plea agreement forecloses most arguments on appeal

Where the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered her guilty plea, and understood the appeal waiver in her plea agreement, the waiver barred the majority of her claims on appeal.

Background

Ceara Smith pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The district court sentenced Smith to 111 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Smith’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California*, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court committed procedural and substantive error in assessing a two-point enhancement for use of sophisticated means under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) (2024).

Smith has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, though she has been notified of her right to do so. The government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Smith’s plea agreement. Smith filed an amended response, requesting that this court suspend ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss pending the Supreme Court’s determination of the issues presented in *Hunter v. United States*, No. 24-1063.

Analysis

A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to the waiver. “To determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to waive his appellate rights, we look to the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant’s experience, conduct, educational background and knowledge of his plea agreement and its terms.”

“Generally, . . . if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Based on the totality of circumstances in this case, Smith knowingly and voluntarily entered her guilty plea and understood the waiver.

This court therefore grants the government’s motion to dismiss, in part, and dismiss the appeal as to all issues falling within the scope of the broad appeal waiver in Smith’s plea agreement. In accordance with its obligations under *Anders*, it has reviewed the entire record for any potentially meritorious issues that do not fall within the scope of the appeal waiver and have found none. Accordingly, the court denies the government’s motion, in part, as to any issues falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver, and affirm the criminal judgment in part.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.

United States v. Smith, Case No. 25-4312, April 30, 2026. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDVA at Newport News (Jackson). Mark Bodner for Appellant. Jacqueline Romy Bechara, Meredith Rose Clement and Alyson Cox Yates for Appellee. VLW 026-2-157. 5 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-157