US v. Kofi Orleans-Lindsay - Affirmance and Dismissal of Appeal

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 4021 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KOFI ORLE AN S- LINDSAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for th e Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judg e. (3:22 - cr - 00026 - GMG - RWT - 10) Submitted: January 27, 2026 Decided: February 27, 2026 Before GREGORY, THACKE R, and H EYTENS, Circuit Jud ges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpub lished per curiam op inion. ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virgin ia, for Appellant. Lara Kay Omps - Bottei cher, OFFICE O F THE UNITED ST ATES ATT ORNEY, Mar tinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Kofi Orleans - Lindsay pled guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) written plea agreement, to conspiracy to po ssess with intent to distribute and to d istribute e utylone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846. The d istrict court imposed a downward variant sen tence of 48 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. Orleans - Lindsay’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting th at there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal b ut questioning whether the 48 - month sentence is procedurally and substantively reason able. Counsel also observes that Orleans - Lindsay validly waived his appellate rights. Although notified of his right to do so, Orleans - Lindsay has not filed a pro se supplem ental brief. The Government moves to dismiss Orleans - Lindsay ’s appeal as barred by the ap peal waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in p art and dismiss in part. W e review an appeal waiver de novo to determine its enforceability. United States v. Smith, 134 F.4th 248, 255 - 57 (4th Cir. 2025). “A waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to app eal.” Id. at 257 (citation modified); United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023) (requiring evaluation of “the totality of the circumstances”). “Generally .. ., if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of th e waiver, the waiver is valid [and enforceable].” Carter, 8 7 F.4th at 22 4 (citation modified). “When[, as here,] the Government invokes an appeal waiver, we enforce it if it is valid and if the issue

3 being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver.” Smi th, 134 F.4th at 257 (citation modified). Upon review of the record and considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Orleans - Lindsay knowingly and voluntarily waiv ed his appellate rights. And Orleans - Lindsay ’s c hallenge to the reasonablen ess of his sentence falls squarely within the scope of his valid appeal waiver. In accordance with Anders, we hav e reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal that are not barred by the appeal waiver. We therefore grant the Gov ernment’s motion to dismiss in p art and dismiss the app eal as to any issues that fall within th e valid waiver’s scope. We also deny the motion in part and affirm as to any i ssue n ot encompa ssed by t he waive r. This court requires that counsel inform Orleans - Lind say, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further rev iew. If Orleans - Lind say req uests 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 Orleans - Lindsay. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN P ART