United States of America v. Myquan Taquil Houston

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MYQUAN TAQUIL HOUSTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:24-cr-00238-D-BM-1)
Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Helen C. Smith, Apex, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jake Pugh, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Myquan Taquil Houston appeals his convictions and the 262-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute 40 grams or more of a substance containing fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of
a substance containing fentanyl and 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of
his right to do so, Houston has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has
moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver included in Houston’s plea
agreement, by which he waived his “right to appeal the conviction and whatever sentence
is imposed on any ground,” with limited exceptions not applicable here. Houston opposes
the motion. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo. United States v. Boutcher, 998
F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021). “When the government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver
and has not breached the plea agreement, we will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the
issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver.” Id. (citation modified). “A
valid appeal waiver is one entered by the defendant knowingly and intelligently, a
determination that we make by considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id. (citation
modified). Our review of the record confirms that Houston knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently executed the appeal waiver. We therefore dismiss the appeal as to all issues
within its scope.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 Houston’s valid appeal
waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss, in part, and dismiss the
appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We otherwise affirm.
This court requires that counsel inform Houston, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Houston 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 Houston. 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --