UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRY LEE CONDREY, a/k/a Jamil,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

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

Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00065-JPB-DJJ-1)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Thomas O. 

Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Lee Condrey pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to aiding and abetting the possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine base within 1000 feet of a school. The 

district court sentenced Condrey to 210 months’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, Condrey’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 11 hearing was properly conducted and whether 

Condrey’s sentence was reasonable. The Government’s brief 

raises Condrey’s waiver of his right to appeal his sentence in 

his plea agreement. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

We review de novo whether a defendant has effectively 

waived his right to appeal. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 

493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). An appellate waiver must be “the 

result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the right 

to appeal.” United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 

1146 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Generally, if a district court fully questions a 

defendant regarding the appellate waiver during the Rule 11 

colloquy, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. United 

States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005). 

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript 

of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Condrey 
3

knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the waiver of appellate 

rights as set forth in the plea agreement. During the Rule 11 

colloquy, the court reviewed the terms of the plea agreement 

with Condrey, including the waiver provision providing that 

Condrey waived the right to appeal any sentence below or at the 

statutory maximum. Condrey affirmed that he understood those 

terms. Additionally, Condrey has not contested the waiver’s 

validity. Because Condrey was sentenced below the statutory 

maximum, we dismiss Condrey’s appeal of his sentence.

The waiver provision, however, does not preclude this 

court’s review of Condrey’s convictions. Because Condrey did 

not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court or 

raise any objections to the Rule 11 colloquy, we review the 

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

517, 527 (4th Cir. 2002). We find that the district court 

substantially complied with Rule 11’s requirements and committed 

no error warranting correction on plain error review.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

affirm Condrey’s conviction. This court requires that counsel 

inform Condrey, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme 

Court of the United States for further review. As such, we deny 

Condrey’s counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. If Condrey 

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that 
4

such petition would be frivolous, counsel may renew the motion 

for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion 

must state that a copy thereof was served on Condrey. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART