UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-4203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RENE CECILIO WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-96-181)
Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 12, 1997
Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duncan R. St. Clair, III, ST. CLAIR & JOHNSON, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Fernando
Groene, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rene Cecilio Wilson pled guilty to a one-count indictment
charging him with illegal re-entry into the United States after
deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (West Supp. 1997), and was sentenced
to a term of 63 months imprisonment. He seeks to appeal his sen-
tence, alleging that the district court erred in determining that
he previously had been deported after being convicted of an aggra-
vated felony and enhancing his sentence accordingly. See United
States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 2L1.2(b)(2)
(Nov. 1996). We find that Wilson waived his appeal rights and
therefore dismiss the appeal.
In his plea agreement, Wilson waived the right to appeal a
sentence within the statutory maximum or the manner in which the
sentence was determined. This provision of the agreement was
brought to his attention by the district court during the plea
colloquy and Wilson stated that he understood the waiver and
affirmed his intention to waive his appeal rights. A defendant may
waive the right to appeal if the waiver is knowing and intelligent.
See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.
1995). We find that Wilson's waiver was knowing and voluntary and
effectively bars review of his challenge to the district court's
application of the sentencing guidelines in his case.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3