UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY MCINTOSH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:12-cr-00039-AW-1)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Harold M. Vaught, Norwalk, California, for Appellant. April J. 

Anderson, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony McIntosh seeks to appeal his conviction and 

sentence for falsification of records in a federal 

investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (2012). 

McIntosh pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement and 

was sentenced to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. On appeal, 

counsel for McIntosh filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the calculation of 

McIntosh’s sentence. McIntosh has not filed a pro se 

supplemental brief despite notice of his right to do so. The 

Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by 

McIntosh’s waiver of the right to appeal, included in the plea 

agreement.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. 

United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). We generally will enforce a 

waiver “if the record establishes that the waiver is valid and 

that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the 

waiver.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th 

Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 133 S.

Ct. 196 (2012). A defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to 

it “knowingly and intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 

F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010).
3

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript 

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that McIntosh 

knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his 

conviction and sentence. Because the Government seeks to 

enforce this knowing and voluntary waiver, we grant the motion 

to dismiss in part and dismiss McIntosh’s appeal as to the 

claims raised in the Anders brief, which are clearly within the 

waiver’s scope. As to any remaining issues, we have reviewed 

the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. 

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment as to all 

issues not encompassed by McIntosh’s valid waiver of appellate 

rights.

This court requires that counsel inform McIntosh, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If McIntosh 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 McIntosh.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART