UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-5212

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ULYSSES SAMUEL HENSEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00388-D-1)

Submitted: August 21, 2012 Decided: August 28, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Bradley L. Henry, BREEDING & DOTHARD, LLC, Knoxville, Tennessee, 

for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ulysses Samuel Hensen appeals from his conviction and 

120-month sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). 

Hensen’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious 

issues for appeal, but questioning whether the guilty plea1 is 

valid, whether Hensen knowingly and voluntarily waived his right 

to appeal, and whether the district court erred in sentencing 

Hensen. Hensen filed a pro se document challenging the validity 

of his plea and the calculation of the Guidelines range.2

 The 

Government has moved to dismiss Hensen’s appeal of his sentence, 

asserting the appeal is precluded by the waiver of appellate 

rights in Hensen’s plea agreement. We grant the Government’s 

motion, dismiss the appeal in part, and affirm in part. 

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Manigan, 

 1 Although counsel captioned this argument a challenge to 

the plea agreement, it is clear from the substance of the claim 

that he challenges the validity of the guilty plea itself.

2 Hensen was granted two extensions of time, until August 13 

2012, to file a pro se supplemental brief more effectively 

addressing these issues. That date has passed and Hensen has 

filed nothing more. We have considered the pro se issues, 

however, and conclude they are either waived or without merit.
3

592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). Generally, if the district 

court 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. General, 278 F.3d 

389, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2002). The question of whether a 

defendant validly waived his appeal rights is a question of law 

that this court reviews de novo. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 626. 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Hensen knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

sentence. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss 

the appeal of Hensen’s sentence and dismiss this portion of the 

appeal.

We next consider Hensen’s challenge to the validity of 

his guilty plea, an issue not foreclosed by Hensen’s appellate 

waiver. Because Hensen did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is 

reviewed for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 

517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To satisfy the plain error standard, 

an appellant must show: “(1) an error was made; (2) the error 

is plain; and (3) the error affects substantial rights.” United 

States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Even if Hensen satisfies these requirements, correction of the 

error lies within our discretion, if we decide that the error 
4

“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 343 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Our review of the record reveals that the district 

court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in 

accepting Hensen’s guilty plea. The district court properly 

informed Hensen of the rights he was forfeiting as a result of 

his plea and the nature of the charges and penalties he faced, 

and found that Hensen was competent and entered his plea 

voluntarily. The record establishes that Hensen knowingly and 

voluntarily entered into his guilty plea with a full 

understanding of its consequences, and that the district court 

ensured the existence of a sufficient factual basis. Therefore, 

there was no error in the district court’s acceptance of the 

plea. 

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no issues that are meritorious and outside 

the scope of the waiver. We therefore affirm Hensen’s 

conviction. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court 

requires that counsel inform Hensen, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Hensen requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may renew his motion for leave to withdraw from 
5

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Hensen. 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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART