**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4004** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. CARLOS MORALES LOPEZ, a/k/a Tatone , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville

. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:09

- cr - 00049

- RLV

- DCK

- 2 )

Submitted : April 23, 2012 Decided: May 10, 2012

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part ; dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Faith S. Bushnaq, BUSHNAQ LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant Unite d States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlos Lopez appeals his conviction and 210

- month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and at least fifty grams of cocaine b ase, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ( 2006 ). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritoriou s grounds for appeal but questioning whether an incomplete transcript of the guilty plea hearing renders effective appellate review impossible, and whether the district court erred in failing to sufficiently explain Lopez’s sentence. Lopez filed a pro se supplemental brief claiming that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on his coconspirator’s possession of a firearm. The Government initially declined to file a response brief. Pursuant to our review under Anders , we directed the
Go vernment to file a brief addressing the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for the sentence. In the resulting brief, t he Government not only addresses the sentencing issue but asserts that the appellate waiver provision in the plea agreement bar s any claim of sentencing erro r, and urges us to enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.3 We review de novo the validity of a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights. United States v. Blick , 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4t h Cir. 2005). “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision
to forgo the right to appeal.” United States v. Amaya

- Portillo , 423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitte d). To determine whether the waiver is knowing and intelligent, we look to “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 omitted). We will enforce a valid waiver so long as “the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Blick , 408 F.3d at 168. In the plea agreement, Lopez agreed to waive all appellate rights relating to his conviction and sentence except for clai ms of in effective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. Moreover, the agreement specifically states that Lopez waives his “to appeal whatever sentence is imposed .” Our review of the record convinces us that Lopez ’s waiver was knowing and intelligent. We are well able, even with the4 partial transcript of the guilty plea hearing, * to conclude that under the totality of the circumstances , Lopez’s waiver of appellate rights was knowing and voluntary. Turning to the scope of the waiver, we conclude that the sentencing issue s raised by counsel in the Anders briefs and by Lopez i n the pro se supplemental brief fall within the scope of the a pp ellate waiver provision, and we dismiss the appeal as to those claims

. In accordance with Anders , we have thoroughly examined the entire record for any other potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Lopez ’ s appeal waiver and have found none

. Therefore we affirm in part as to any potential claims not foreclosed by the waiver provision, and di smiss the appeal in part as to those claims encompassed by the waiver

. This court requires that counsel inform Lopez , in writing, of the right to petiti on the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lopez 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 Lopez . We dispense with oral argument because the

* The transcript is incomplete as it was created from a digital recording that ended prior to the conclusion of the hearing.5 facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART ; DISMISSED IN PART