UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RYAN DAVID MATTHEWS, a/k/a Red,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cr-00147-AW-6)
Submitted: July 12, 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012
Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Dwight E. Crawley, LAW OFFICE OF DWIGHT E. CRAWLEY, Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Arun G. Rao, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan David Matthews pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute phencyclidine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court
sentenced Matthews to 168 months of imprisonment and he now
appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Matthews’
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and whether the sentence
was reasonable, but stating that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Matthews was informed of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not do so. The Government has filed
a motion to dismiss Matthews’ appeal of his sentence based on
Matthews’ waiver of his right to appeal in his plea agreement.
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal of Matthews’
sentence and affirm his conviction.
A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the
right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United States v.
Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This Court reviews
the validity of an appellate waiver de novo, and will enforce
the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the
scope thereof. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th
Cir. 2005).
An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly
and intelligently agreed to the waiver. Id. at 169. To
2
determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, this
Court examines “the totality of the circumstances, including the
experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s
educational background and familiarity with the terms of the
plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400
(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th
Cir. 1991). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that Matthews’ guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We also
conclude, therefore, that Matthews knowingly and intelligently
waived his right to appeal his sentence under the circumstances
presented.
Because we conclude the appellate waiver was valid and
bars Matthews from appealing his 168-month sentence, we grant
the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal to the extent it
seeks appellate review of Matthews’ sentence. We have examined
the entire record in accordance with the requirements of Anders
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Matthews’ conviction.
3
This Court requires that counsel inform Matthews, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Matthews 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 Matthews. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4