UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM TURNER SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00011-D-1)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robert J. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Turner Smith pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to 336
months in prison. Smith’s counsel has filed a brief, pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), explaining that he
found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the
district court erred in calculating the drug quantity for
sentencing purposes and by denying Smith’s motion for a downward
variance. Although informed of his right to do so, Smith has
not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government moves to
dismiss Smith’s appeal of his sentence on the basis of Smith’s
waiver of the right to appeal his sentence contained in his plea
agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Blick, 408
F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court
fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to
appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and
enforceable. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151
(4th Cir. 2005). The district court informed Smith of the
waiver at the Rule 11 hearing, and Smith stated that he
understood. Moreover, Smith stated that he read and understood
the plea agreement, which contained an explicit waiver of the
right to appeal from his sentence, except in certain limited
2
circumstances not relevant here. On appeal, Smith does not
challenge the voluntariness or the validity of the waiver.
Therefore, we find that Smith knowingly and intelligently waived
the right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we grant the
Government’s motion to dismiss Smith’s appeal of his sentence.
We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance
with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal not
covered by the waiver. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s
conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Smith in writing of his right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may motion this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Smith. 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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3