UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4726
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT BLAKE KELLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00043-LHT-DLH-1; 1:08-cv-294-LHT)
Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 22, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer Haynes Rose, LAW OFFICE OF JENNIFER HAYNES ROSE,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Blake Keller pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Keller to 120
months of imprisonment, and Keller appeals his conviction and
sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.
Keller argues that (1) the district court erred in
enhancing his sentence for possession of a weapon, (2) his
sentence was unreasonable, and (3) he received ineffective
assistance when his attorney failed to argue objections to the
presentence report. The Government has asserted that Keller’s
appeal is foreclosed by the appellate waiver in the plea
agreement, in which Keller agreed to waive his right to appeal
his conviction and sentence, except for claims of prosecutorial
misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel. Because we
find Keller’s waiver of his right to appeal was knowing and
voluntary, see United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005), we find that Keller waived his right to appeal,
except for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Further, we conclude that Keller’s claim that his counsel was
ineffective is not cognizable on direct appeal because counsel’s
ineffectiveness does not conclusively appear on the face of the
record. See United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th
Cir. 2006).
2
We therefore affirm the judgment. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3