UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 99-4721

CELSO RAMIREZ-ANZUA,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-98-225)

Submitted: November 30, 2000

Decided: February 6, 2001

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Charles L. Morgan, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Celso Ramirez-Anzua seeks to appeal his conviction for conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21

U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). Ramirez-Anzua’s counsel has filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting

there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Advised of his right to file

a pro se supplemental brief, Ramirez-Anzua has not done so. 

Ramirez-Anzua signed a written plea agreement in which he

agreed to waive his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, except

for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. A waiver of appeal provision in a valid plea agreement is

enforceable if it results from a knowing and intelligent decision to

forgo an appeal. United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731 (4th Cir.

1994); United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). A

waiver is ineffective if the district court fails to question the defendant

about it, United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir.

1991), unless other evidence in the record shows that the waiver was

informed and voluntary, United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186

(4th Cir. 1992). We review de novo the validity of a waiver. United

States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). 

Here, Ramirez-Anzua signed the plea agreement containing the

waiver provision. The Government summarized the plea agreement at

the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. An interpreter was present at the

hearing to translate the proceeding into Spanish, Ramirez-Anzua’s

native language. In response to the magistrate judge’s inquiry,

Ramirez-Anzua agreed that the right to appeal the conviction and sentence was expressly waived in the plea agreement. He said that he

was happy with the services of his counsel and that he had heard and

understood the Rule 11 proceeding. On this record, we conclude that

Ramirez-Anzua’s waiver was knowingly and intelligently made. As

the only claims counsel asserts in his brief involve sentencing, they

are barred by Ramirez-Anzua’s valid waiver of his appeal rights and

we dismiss the appeal on that basis. United States v. Brown, No. 99-

4599, 2000 WL 1713895, at *3 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 2000). 

2 UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ-ANZUA
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. This Court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to 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.

DISMISSED

UNITED STATES v. RAMIREZ-ANZUA 3