UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 4697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND LAWERENCE BROWN, a/k/a 031 , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. ( 5:20

- cr - 00141

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF : Mitchell G. Styers , BANZET, THOMPSON, STYERS & MAY, PLLC , Warrenton, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz , Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4697 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Raymond Law e rence Brown pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced him to 240 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, couns el has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Brown’s sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. Although informed of h is right to do so, Brown has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government moves to dismiss Brown’s appeal pursuant to the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. “We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine whether the waiver is enforceable” and “will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue [s] being appealed fall [] within the scope of the waiver.” United States v. Boutcher , 998 F.3d 603, 608 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). An appellate waiver is valid if the defendant enters it “knowingly and intelligently, a determination that we make by considering the totality of the circumstances.” Id

. “Generally though, if a district co urt questions a defendant regarding the waiver of appellate rights during the [Fed. R. Crim. P. ] 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” United States v. McCoy , 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record, including the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, confirms that Brown knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his USCA4 Appeal: 23-4697 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 conviction and sentence, with limited exceptions not applicable here. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the sentencing issues raised in the Anders brief fall squarely within the waiver’s scope. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no potentially meritorious grounds for appeal outside the scope of Brown’s valid appellate waiver. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the appeal as to all issues covered by the waiver. We deny the motion in part and otherwise affirm. This court requires that counsel inform Brown, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Brown requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then c ounsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Brown. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART USCA4 Appeal: 23-4697 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 3 of 3