UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNIS RAY FAIRFAX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

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

Chief District Judge. (7:13-cr-00058-D-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2014 Decided: January 6, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Dennis Ray Fairfax pleaded guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to possession of a firearm by a felon, 

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924 (2012). The district court 

sentenced him to ninety-six months’ imprisonment, the top of the 

advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range.

On appeal, counsel for Fairfax 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 the substantive reasonableness of Fairfax’s 

sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based 

on the appellate waiver provision in Fairfax’s plea agreement. 

After review of the record, we grant the Government’s motion and 

dismiss the appeal.

We review de novo the validity of an appeal waiver. 

United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 134 S. Ct. 126 (2013). “We generally will enforce a 

waiver . . . if the record establishes that the waiver is valid 

and that the issue being appealed is within the scope of the 

waiver.” United States v. Thornsbury, 670 F.3d 532, 537 (4th 

Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). A 

defendant’s waiver is valid if he agreed to it “knowingly and 

intelligently.” United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 

(4th Cir. 2010).
3

Our review of the record confirms that Fairfax 

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

conviction and his sentence, reserving only the right to appeal 

a sentence in excess of the Guidelines range established at 

sentencing. The district court imposed a within-Guidelines 

sentence, and we have examined the record in light of our 

obligations under Anders and have discerned no unwaived 

meritorious issues. Therefore, we grant the Government’s motion 

to dismiss.

This court requires that counsel inform Fairfax, in 

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

United States for further review. If Fairfax 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 Fairfax.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the material 

before this court and argument will not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED