United States v. Johnny Vanover

USCA4 Appeal: 24-4531 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4531 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY MERCER VANOVER, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:23-cr-00640-SAL-1) Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025 Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Hunter Windham, DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Lamar J. Fyall, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4531 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Johnny Mercer Vanover, Jr., pleaded guilty to assault on a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. The district court sentenced Vanover within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Vanover’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Vanover is guilty, whether United States Marshals are protected under § 111(b), and whether the presentence report was correctly calculated. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal in part based on the appeal waiver in Vanover’s plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Vanover’s waiver of appellate rights does not prevent our review of the validity of the plea itself. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). We review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy for plain error. See United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review); see also Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266, 272 (2013) (describing plain error standard). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of, and determines that the defendant understands, the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the nature of the charge to which he is pleading, and the applicable maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991). The district court also must ensure that the plea was voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and “that there is a factual basis for the plea,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Here, the district court conducted a thorough 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4531 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 3 of 4 and complete Rule 11 hearing. We therefore conclude that Vanover entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that a factual basis supported the plea. With respect to Vanover’s waiver of his appellate rights, “[w]e review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher, 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id. “Generally though, 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 the waiver, the waiver is valid.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 362 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record confirms that, with limited exceptions, Vanover knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that the sentencing issue raised in the Anders brief falls squarely within the scope of the waiver. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Vanover’s appeal of all issues falling within the scope of the appellate waiver and affirm the remainder of the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Vanover, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Vanover requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would 3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4531 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/16/2025 Pg: 4 of 4 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 Vanover. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 4