United States of America v. Cody Alexander Locklear

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-4261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CODY ALEXANDER LOCKLEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00101-D-1)
Submitted: June 29, 2022 Decided: July 7, 2022
Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Cody Alexander Locklear pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, heroin,
and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; distribution of fentanyl and heroin, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court initially
sentenced Locklear to 234 months’ imprisonment, a term at the high end of the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. Locklear appealed, and the Government moved to dismiss
Locklear’s appeal as barred by the appeal waiver in his plea agreement. We denied the
Government’s motion, finding that Locklear’s challenge to the court’s imposition of the
supervised release conditions was outside the scope of his appeal waiver. Based on the
Government’s subsequent unopposed motion, we remanded for resentencing. United
States v. Locklear, No. 20-4459 (4th Cir. Jan. 29, 2021 & Feb. 8, 2021) (unpublished
orders). On remand, the district court again sentenced Locklear to 234 months’
imprisonment. Locklear timely appealed.
Counsel for Locklear 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
whether Locklear’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Although informed of his right
to do so, Locklear has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government moves to
dismiss the appeal as barred by the appeal waiver included in Locklear’s plea agreement.
We affirm in part and grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part.
We review the validity of an appeal 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,

-- 2 of 4 --

3
814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). Generally, if the district court fully questions a
defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in
accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and the record shows that the defendant understood
the waiver’s significance, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v.
Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th Cir. 2012). Our review of the record confirms that
Locklear knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Furthermore, we conclude
that Locklear’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence falls squarely within the
waiver’s scope.
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 the appellate waiver. We
therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all
issues within the waiver’s scope. We affirm the remainder of the judgment.* This court
requires that counsel inform Locklear, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court
of the United States for further review. If Locklear 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 Locklear. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
* Because Locklear had the opportunity to challenge his convictions in his initial
non-Anders appeal but did not do so, the mandate rule forecloses review of the validity of
his convictions. See United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --