UNPUBLISHED

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Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

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 questioning 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 based 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 “the waiver 

was 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 raised 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 motion 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 claims 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); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 

(1984) (providing elements of ineffective assistance claim).

Thus, we decline to consider Daniels’ ineffective assistance 

claims on direct appeal. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no unwaived and potentially meritorious 

issues for review. 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, but 
4

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