UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4845

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARVIN EARL DANIELS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00026-FL-1)

Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: May 26, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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. Ann Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Earl Daniels pleaded guilty to possession of a 

firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime 

punishable by a term exceeding one year of imprisonment, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). The district court 

sentenced Daniels to 158 months of imprisonment and Daniels now 

appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one sentencing issue

but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 

Daniels was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief, but did not do so. The Government has filed a motion to 

dismiss Daniels’ appeal of his sentence based on Daniels’ waiver

of his right to appeal. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss 

the appeal of Daniels’ sentence and affirm his conviction.

A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the 

right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United States v. 

Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51, 53 (4th Cir. 1990). This court reviews 

the validity of an appellate waiver de novo, and will enforce 

the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the 

scope thereof. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005). 

An appeal waiver is valid if the defendant knowingly 

and intelligently agreed to the waiver. Id. at 169. To 

determine whether a waiver is knowing and intelligent, this 
3

court examines “the totality of the circumstances, including the 

experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused’s 

educational background and familiarity with the terms of the 

plea agreement.” United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 400 

(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation 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, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. 

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

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

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Daniels knowingly 

and intelligently entered into the plea agreement and waived his 

appellate rights. 

Accordingly, Daniels waived the right to appeal his 

sentence and we thus grant the Government’s motion to dismiss 

the appeal of Daniels’ sentence. We have examined the entire 

record in accordance with the requirements of Anders and have 

found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm 

Daniels’ conviction. This court requires that counsel inform 

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

of the United States for further review. If Daniels 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 
4

must state that a copy thereof was served on Daniels. 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