UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4803

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

BEN VAZQUEZ-ESCALARA, a/k/a Bruce, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00041-JPB-JES-4) 

Submitted: December 23, 2008 Decided: January 8, 2009 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 Ben Vazquez-Escalara pled guilty to aiding and 

abetting the possession with intent to distribute approximately 

fifty-eight grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) (2006), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). The district 

court sentenced him to a 120-month term of imprisonment, the 

statutory mandatory minimum sentence. On appeal, counsel has 

filed an Anders1 brief, stating that there are no meritorious 

issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court 

committed plain error in accepting Vazquez-Escalara’s guilty 

plea. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based upon 

Vazquez-Escalara’s waiver of appellate rights. We deny the 

motion to dismiss and affirm. 

 A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. AmayaPortillo, 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); United States v. 

Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of 

whether a defendant validly waived his right to appeal is a 

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

2 
question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Blick, 

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

 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Vazquez-Escalara knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to 

appeal his sentence.2 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 Vazquez-Escalara’s 

conviction that may be revealed by our review pursuant to 

Anders. Our review of the transcript of the plea colloquy leads 

us to conclude that the district court fully complied with the 

mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Vazquez-Escalara’s guilty plea. 

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, 116, 119-20 

(4th Cir. 1991). Thus, we deny 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 Vazquez-Escalara’s 

conviction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, 

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

 2

 Vazquez-Escalara, however, does not appeal any aspect of 

his sentence. 

3 
4 

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