UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4416

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ESTEE PETE GILSTRAP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (8:12-cr—00481-JMC-4)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

William I. Bouton, WILKINS & BOUTON, LLC, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Estee Pete 

Gilstrap pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 

grams or more of methamphetamine and using and carrying a 

firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. 

In the plea agreement, Gilstrap agreed to waive his right to 

appeal his conviction and sentence, except on grounds of 

ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. 

Gilstrap now appeals. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there 

are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the 

validity of the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the 

sentence. Gilstrap was advised of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has 

filed a motion to dismiss Gilstrap’s appeal based on the 

appellate waiver provision in his plea agreement. We dismiss in 

part and affirm in part. 

In the absence of a motion in the district court to 

withdraw a guilty plea, this court’s review of the plea colloquy 

is for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 

525 (4th Cir. 2002). After reviewing the plea agreement and the 

transcript of the plea hearing, we conclude that the district 

court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11 when accepting Gilstrap’s guilty plea.
3

We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate 

rights. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 

2005). “A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that 

waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to 

forgo the right to appeal.” United States v. Amaya-Portillo, 

423 F.3d 427, 430 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). To determine whether the waiver is knowing and

intelligent, we look “to the totality of the circumstances, 

including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as 

the accused’s educational background and familiarity with the 

terms of the plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278 

F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Gilstrap knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal 

his sentence. We therefore grant in part the Government’s 

motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal of Gilstrap’s sentence. 

The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our direct 

review of Gilstrap’s conviction pursuant to Anders. 

Accordingly, we have reviewed the entire record and have found 

no meritorious issues that are outside the scope of the waiver. 

We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and 

affirm Gilstrap’s conviction. 
4

This court requires that counsel inform Gilstrap, in 

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

United States for further review. If Gilstrap 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 Gilstrap. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART