UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

VINCENT LAMAR BOULWARE,

Defendant – Appellant.

No. 10-4795

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

VINCENT LAMAR BOULWARE,

Defendant – Appellant.

No. 10-4796

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.
2

VINCENT LAMAR BOULWARE,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00082-MR-1; 1:09-cr-00055-MR-2; 1:09-

cr-00058-MR-3)

Submitted: June 3, 2011 Decided: June 15, 2011

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Aaron E. Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne 

M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Richard Lee Edwards, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Lamar Boulware pleaded guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to three counts of bank robbery, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (2006). The district court 

sentenced Boulware to 188 months’ imprisonment. Boulware 

appeals his sentence and argues on appeal that his sentence was 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that his trial 

counsel provided ineffective assistance. Relying on the waiver 

of appellate rights in Boulware’s plea agreement, the Government 

urges the dismissal of this appeal. We dismiss in part and 

affirm in part.

A defendant may waive the right to appeal if that 

waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. Poindexter, 

492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if the district 

court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his 

right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed in accordance 

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and 

enforceable. See United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 

(4th Cir. 2005). The question of whether a defendant validly 

waived his right to appeal is a question of law that this court 

reviews de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 

(4th Cir. 2005).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Boulware 

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 
4

conviction and sentence, except based on claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, and that the 

magistrate judge fully questioned Boulware regarding the appeal 

waiver at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearings. Accordingly, the 

waiver is valid.

Because Boulware’s challenges to the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence fall within the 

waiver’s scope, we grant the Government’s request in part and 

dismiss this portion of the appeal. Boulware, however, 

preserved the right to appeal on the basis of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. 

Turning, then, to Boulware’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, we conclude that such a claim is more 

appropriately raised in a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010), unless counsel’s ineffectiveness 

conclusively appears on the record. See United States v. 

Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999). Because we find 

no conclusive evidence on the face of the present record that 

trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, we decline to 

address the merits of this claim on direct appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court in part and dismiss the appeal in part. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
5

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART