UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4312
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. RUFFIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00335-HEH-1)
Submitted: November 9, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Frances H.
Pratt, Elizabeth S. Wilson, Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United
States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher J. Ruffin appeals from his conviction and
240-month sentence following his guilty plea to one count of
manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2006); and one
count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). Ruffin’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 in accepting Ruffin’s guilty plea. Ruffin was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did
not do so. The Government filed a responding brief arguing that
Ruffin waived his right to appeal his conviction. Finding
Ruffin validly waived the right to appeal his conviction and
sentence, we dismiss his appeal.
A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that
waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan,
592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Generally, if the district
court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his
right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the
waiver is both valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson,
410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. General, 278
F.3d 389, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2002). The question of whether a
2
defendant validly waived his appeal rights is a question of law
that this court reviews de novo. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 626.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Ruffin knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his
conviction and sentence. Ruffin’s challenge to the district
court’s acceptance of his guilty plea falls within the scope of
the waiver. We therefore dismiss Ruffin’s appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not
covered by the plea agreement’s waiver of appellate rights. We
therefore dismiss Ruffin’s appeal. This court requires that
counsel inform Ruffin, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Ruffin requests 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
Ruffin. 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.
DISMISSED
3