UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4228

RONNIE LOGAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-00-68-3)

Submitted: October 31, 2001

Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion. 

COUNSEL

Marshall A. Swann, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert

J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Ronnie Logan pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841 (West 1999). Logan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no

meritorious issues for appeal. Logan has filed a pro se supplemental

brief. 

Logan signed a written plea agreement in which he agreed to waive

the right to appeal his conviction or sentence, except for claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. A

waiver of appeal provision in a valid plea agreement is enforceable

if it results from a knowing and intelligent decision to forego an

appeal. United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731 (4th Cir. 1994);

United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). A waiver

is ineffective if the district court fails to question the defendant about

it, United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991),

unless other evidence in the record shows that the waiver was

informed and voluntary. United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 186

(4th Cir. 1992). We review de novo the validity of a waiver. United

States v. Brown, 232 F.3d 399, 402-03 (4th Cir. 2000). 

Here, Logan signed the plea agreement, agreeing to waive the right

to challenge the conviction or sentence with the stated exceptions.

The Government summarized the plea agreement at the Fed. R. Crim.

P. 11 hearing. In response to the magistrate judge’s inquiry, Logan

agreed that the right to appeal his conviction and sentence was

expressly waived in the plea agreement. He did not express dissatisfaction with counsel’s services. He also stated that he understood the

Rule 11 proceeding. On this record, we find that Logan’s waiver was

knowingly and intelligently made. We therefore dismiss the portion

of the appeal raising issues within the scope of the waiver provision.

Logan’s supplemental pro se brief raises one claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel that is not barred by the waiver. He argues

that his counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the sufficiency

of the indictment when it did not specify a drug amount. Claims of

2 UNITED STATES v. LOGAN
ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness plainly appears on the face of the record. United

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). We have

reviewed the record for error and have found no clear ineffective

assistance by trial counsel. We therefore affirm the judgment with

respect to this claim. Logan’s pro se claim challenging the calculation

of drug quantity is prohibited by the waiver of right to appeal. 

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his 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 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

UNITED STATES v. LOGAN 3