UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PEZZULO SCURLOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00233-D-1)

Submitted: August 19, 2011 Decided: September 16, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pezzulo Scurlock pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a 

convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 

(2006). The district court sentenced Scurlock to thirty-three 

months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. 

On appeal, Scurlock’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states 

that he could find no meritorious issues for appeal, but 

questions whether the district court procedurally erred by 

failing to address one of Scurlock’s arguments for a shorter 

sentence. Scurlock was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief but has not done so. The Government moved to 

dismiss the appeal to the extent it is precluded by the appeal 

waiver in Scurlock’s plea agreement.

We consider a defendant’s waiver of his right to 

appeal de novo. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 

(4th Cir. 2010). Where the United States seeks to enforce an 

appeal waiver and there is no claim that the United States 

breached its obligations under the plea agreement, we generally 

will enforce the waiver if the record establishes that (1) the 

defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right 

to appeal; and (2) the issue being appealed is within the scope 
3

of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005).

Our review of the record confirms that Scurlock 

knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal his 

sentence. In his plea agreement, Scurlock explicitly waived the 

right to challenge his sentence on appeal, reserving only the 

right to appeal a sentence in excess of the applicable 

Sentencing Guidelines range. The district court conducted the 

colloquy required by Rule 11, and Scurlock affirmed under oath 

that he understood all the terms of his plea agreement as well 

as the appeal waiver specifically. The issue raised in 

Scurlock’s Anders brief falls squarely within the compass of the 

waiver. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal as to Scurlock’s sentence.

The waiver provision did not, however, waive 

Scurlock’s right to appeal his conviction. In accordance with 

Anders, we have thoroughly examined the entire record for any 

potentially meritorious issues outside the scope of Scurlock’s 

appeal waiver. We have found no such issues. Therefore we 

affirm Scurlock’s conviction and grant the Government’s motion 

to dismiss in part as to Scurlock’s sentence. 

This Court requires that counsel inform Scurlock, in 

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

United States for further review. If Scurlock requests that a 
4

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 Scurlock. 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