Background
Ray Cozart, Jr. pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846. His written plea agreement included a waiver of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, subject to limited exceptions. Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles varied downward from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Cozart’s counsel filed an Anders brief — a procedural mechanism under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) — representing that no meritorious grounds for appeal existed while flagging two potential issues: the validity of the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the sentence. Cozart did not file a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his right to do so. The government moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the plea agreement’s appellate waiver, and Cozart took no position on that motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit held that Cozart’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. Because Cozart did not move to withdraw his plea or object at the plea hearing, the court reviewed for plain error and found none, concluding that the district court had properly conducted its Rule 11 colloquy by informing Cozart of the charges, applicable penalties, and the rights he was waiving.
The court further held that Cozart’s appellate waiver was valid and enforceable. Reviewing de novo, the panel found that the record — including the district court’s Rule 11 questioning — confirmed Cozart had knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the waiver and understood its terms. Because Cozart’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence fell squarely within the scope of that valid waiver, and because the court’s full Anders review of the record revealed no meritorious grounds for appeal outside the waiver’s scope, the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss as to all waived issues and otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate waiver in a plea agreement does not foreclose a defendant’s ability to challenge the validity of the underlying guilty plea itself — the Fourth Circuit reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy on the merits notwithstanding the waiver.
- Where a defendant does not object at the plea hearing or move to withdraw the plea, the validity of the plea is reviewed only for plain error, a demanding standard that Cozart could not meet.
- A sentence-reasonableness challenge is a paradigmatic waived issue: if the plea agreement’s appellate waiver is valid and the challenge falls within its scope, the appellate court will dismiss rather than reach the merits.
- Counsel in Anders cases remain obligated to inform their client in writing of the right to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari after the Fourth Circuit rules.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision illustrates the practical finality that appellate waivers impose in federal drug prosecutions. Even where a defendant receives a below-Guidelines sentence, a knowing and voluntary waiver will bar appellate review of that sentence’s reasonableness, leaving the defendant with no avenue to argue for a shorter term. Defense counsel negotiating plea agreements must ensure clients fully appreciate the breadth of any appellate waiver before signing.
The case also reinforces the Fourth Circuit’s consistent practice of conducting a full Anders review to confirm no non-waived issue warrants relief — an important procedural safeguard ensuring that waiver enforcement does not inadvertently foreclose claims, such as ineffective assistance or constitutional defects, that fall outside a waiver’s scope.