UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4693

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY MATTHEW MURPHY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (4:11-cr-00014-JLK-1)

Submitted: March 8, 2013 Decided: March 21, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine 

Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Matthew Murphy pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), and was sentenced to 

120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the 

reasonableness of Murphy’s sentence. Murphy was informed of his 

right to file a pro se brief but has not done so. The 

Government has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal in part on 

the ground that Murphy knowingly and intelligently waived the 

right to appeal his sentence and conviction. For the reasons 

that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.

In his plea agreement, Murphy waived the right to 

appeal his sentence and conviction, reserving only the right to 

appeal those issues that may not be waived by law. “A defendant 

may waive the right to appeal . . . so long as the waiver is 

knowing and voluntary.” United States v. 

Copeland, F.3d , , 2013 WL 657785, at *5 (4th Cir. 

Feb. 25, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, 

if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the 

waiver of his right to appeal during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

colloquy and the record reveals that the defendant understood 

the full import of the waiver, the waiver is both valid and 
3

enforceable. Id. A review of the record reveals that the court 

determined Murphy was competent to plead guilty, had the 

opportunity to discuss his plea agreement with counsel, entered 

his guilty plea in the absence of threats or force, and 

understood the terms of his appeal waiver. Thus, we conclude 

that Murphy validly waived his right to appeal his sentence and 

conviction and that the claim raised on appeal falls within the 

scope of his waiver. Id. (providing standard). Accordingly, we 

grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and dismiss the 

appeal of Murphy’s sentence and conviction as to any issue for 

which waiver is legally permissible.

Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement 

precludes our review of most issues related to Murphy’s sentence 

and conviction, the waiver does not preclude our review of any 

errors that may not be waived and that may be revealed by our 

review pursuant to Anders. See United States v. Johnson, 410 

F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005) (naming issues not waived by 

appellate waiver). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed 

the record in this case and have found no unwaived meritorious 

issues for appeal. We therefore deny in part the Government’s 

motion to dismiss and affirm Murphy’s sentence and conviction on 

any grounds not encompassed by his knowing and intelligent 

appellate waiver.
4

This court requires that counsel inform Murphy, in 

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

United States for further review. If Murphy 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 Murphy. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART