UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CARISA M. CONFERE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00020-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted: July 19, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Stephen G. Jory, MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN & VARNER, L.C., 

Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Carisa M. Confere appeals from her conviction and 

168-month sentence entered pursuant to her guilty plea to one 

count of aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1)

and (b)(1)(C) (West 1999 & Supp. 2011). Counsel has filed a 

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

concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

questioning whether Confere knowingly and intelligently pleaded 

guilty, whether Confere should have received a lower sentence 

for assisting the Government, and whether the court imposed an 

unreasonable sentence. Confere filed a pro se supplemental 

brief asserting the first two issues raised by her counsel. The 

Government filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of 

the appellate waiver contained in Confere’s plea agreement; 

Confere’s counsel opposed the motion.

 A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

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

492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Our independent review of 

the record supports the conclusion that Confere knowingly and 

intelligently waived her right to appeal. Because we conclude 

that the waiver is valid and enforceable as to Confere’s 

challenges to her sentence, we grant the Government’s motion to 

dismiss in part and dismiss Confere’s appeal of her sentence.
3

The language of Confere’s waiver does not encompass 

her challenge to the validity of her guilty plea. Therefore, we 

deny the motion to dismiss as to this claim. However, our 

review convinces us that the claim lacks merit. Prior to 

accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must inform the defendant 

of the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered, any 

mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum possible penalty she 

faces, and the various rights she is relinquishing by pleading 

guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The court also must determine 

whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Id.; United 

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). The 

purpose of the Rule 11 colloquy is to ensure that the plea of 

guilt is entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United 

States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58 (2002). Because the record 

confirms that the district court complied with the requirements 

of Rule 11, we conclude that Confere’s guilty plea was knowing 

and voluntary.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no unwaived and meritorious issues 

for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, 

in writing, of her 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 
4

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. 

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART