UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM TURNER SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00011-D-1)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Robert J. McAfee, MCAFEE LAW, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

William Turner Smith pled guilty to possession with 

intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to 336 

months in prison. Smith’s counsel has filed a brief, pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), explaining that he 

found no meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the 

district court erred in calculating the drug quantity for 

sentencing purposes and by denying Smith’s motion for a downward 

variance. Although informed of his right to do so, Smith has 

not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government moves to 

dismiss Smith’s appeal of his sentence on the basis of Smith’s 

waiver of the right to appeal his sentence contained in his plea 

agreement. 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. Blick, 408 

F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court 

fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to 

appeal during the Rule 11 colloquy, the waiver is both valid and 

enforceable. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 

(4th Cir. 2005). The district court informed Smith of the 

waiver at the Rule 11 hearing, and Smith stated that he 

understood. Moreover, Smith stated that he read and understood 

the plea agreement, which contained an explicit waiver of the 

right to appeal from his sentence, except in certain limited 
3

circumstances not relevant here. On appeal, Smith does not 

challenge the voluntariness or the validity of the waiver. 

Therefore, we find that Smith knowingly and intelligently waived 

the right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we grant the 

Government’s motion to dismiss Smith’s appeal of his sentence.

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance 

with Anders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal not 

covered by the waiver. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s 

conviction and dismiss the appeal of his sentence. This court 

requires that counsel inform Smith in writing of his right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Smith requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel 

may motion this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on 

Smith. 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