UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RICKY RAY SEABOLT, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior 

District Judge. (2:05-cr-00032-REM-JSK-1) 

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Ricky Ray Seabolt pled guilty to aiding and abetting 

the attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, and the district 

court sentenced him to a 168-month term of imprisonment. On 

appeal, counsel has filed an Anders1 brief, concluding that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether 

the district court erred in calculating Seabolt’s Guidelines 

range and in choosing an appropriate sentence. The Government 

has moved to dismiss the appeal based upon Seabolt’s waiver of 

appellate rights in his plea agreement.2 Although informed of 

his right to do so, Seabolt has not filed a pro se supplemental 

brief. 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. 

Amaya-Portillo, 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005). 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). The 

question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to 

 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

2

 Seabolt waived the right to appeal “any sentence, or the 

manner in which it was determined, on any ground whatever.” 

2 
appeal is a question of law that we review de novo. United 

States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 

 Our review of the Rule 11 hearing discloses that 

Seabolt was informed of the nature of the waiver and its 

potential consequences and that he understood. Thus, we find 

the waiver valid and enforceable. Moreover, the sentencing 

issues raised on appeal fall within the scope of the waiver. We 

therefore grant, in part, the Government’s motion to dismiss and 

dismiss this portion of the appeal. 

 Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement 

precludes our review of the sentence, the waiver does not 

preclude our review of any errors in Seabolt’s conviction that 

may be revealed by our review pursuant to Anders. Nonetheless, 

our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy leads us to 

conclude that the district court ensured that the plea was 

entered knowingly and voluntarily and was supported by an 

independent factual basis. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 

F.2d 114, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, we deny, in part, the 

Government’s motion to dismiss and affirm the conviction. 

 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues not 

covered by the waiver. We therefore affirm Seabolt’s conviction 

and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court requires 

that counsel inform the client, in writing, of the right to 

3 
4 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If the client 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 the client. 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