**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 5099** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. W. Earl Britt , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00057

- BR

- 1 )

Submitted : June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012

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

. Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

U npublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Cornelius Daniels appeals the criminal judgment entered following his guilty plea, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questi oning whether the district court properly sentenced Daniels as a career offender. Daniels has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he alleges that counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal base d on the appellate waiver provision in Daniels’ plea agreement. Daniels opposes the motion. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
We review a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights de

novo. United States v. Blick , 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive his right to appeal if “ th e waiver

wa s based upon a knowing and intelligent decision .” United States v. General , 278 F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. 2002) ( providing standard ) (internal quotation marks omitted) ; see United
States v. Johnson , 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). We will enforce a valid waiver so long as “the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” Blick , 408 F.3d at 168.3 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Daniels’ waiver of appellate rights was knowing and intelligent and that the sentencing issue raise d by counsel falls within the waiver’s scope. Daniels received a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range established at the sentencing hearing. Thus, we grant in part the Government’s m otion to dismiss and dismiss this portion of the appeal. The waiver provision, however, does not preclude our review of Daniels’ conviction pursuant to Anders or the ineffective assistance claim s Daniels raises in his pro se supplemental brief

. We conclude that the record does not conclusively demonstrate that counsel was ineffective. United States v. Martinez , 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998) (providing standard); s ee Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984) (providing elements of ineffective assistance claim). Thus, we decline to consider Daniels’ ineffective assistance claim s on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders , we ha ve reviewed the entire record and have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious issues for rev iew. We therefore deny in part the Government’s motion to dismiss and affirm Daniels’ conviction

. This court requires that counsel inform Daniels , in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Daniels requests that a petition be filed, but4 counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Daniels . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART