UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4900

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REMY HEATH, a/k/a Remy, a/k/a King Remy, a/k/a King Mellow,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:09-cr-00598-AW-7)

Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Harry D. McKnett, LAW OFFICE OF HARRY D. MCKNETT, LLC, Columbia, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Emily Noel Glatfelter, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Remy Heath pled guilty in a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

hearing to one count of conspiracy to participate in 

racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 

(2006). He was sentenced to 130 months in prison. In 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

Heath’s attorney has filed a brief certifying that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether Heath’s 

guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and whether his sentence 

was reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Heath 

has not filed a supplemental pro se brief. The Government has 

moved to dismiss Heath’s appeal to the extent that the issues he 

raises fall within the scope of his plea agreement’s waiver of 

appellate rights. For the following reasons, we grant the 

Government’s motion in part, and dismiss the appeal in part and 

affirm in part.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, a defendant may waive 

his appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). United 

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). A valid 

waiver will preclude appeal of a given issue if the issue is 

within the scope of the waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 

F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). The validity of an appellate 

waiver is a question of law that we review de novo. Id. “The 

validity of an appeal waiver depends on whether the defendant 
3

knowingly and intelligently agreed to waive the right to 

appeal.” Id. at 169. This determination, often made based on 

the sufficiency of the plea colloquy and whether the district 

court questioned the defendant about the appeal waiver, 

ultimately turns on an evaluation of the totality of the 

circumstances. Id. 

Here, the district court substantially complied with 

Rule 11 when accepting Heath’s plea, ensuring that Heath

understood the rights he was relinquishing by pleading guilty 

and the sentence he faced, that he committed the offense to 

which he was pleading, and that he was aware of the limits his

plea would place on his appellate rights. Given no indication 

to the contrary, we find that Heath’s appellate waiver is valid 

and enforceable. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion 

to dismiss the appeal to the extent it raises issues within the 

scope of the waiver, including Heath’s appeal of his sentence.

But even a valid waiver of appellate rights will not 

foreclose a colorable constitutional challenge to the 

voluntariness of a guilty plea. See, e.g., United States v.

Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 732-33 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, 

Heath’s appellate waiver does not foreclose our review of the 

knowing and voluntary nature of his guilty plea. As noted 

above, however, the district court substantially complied with 

Rule 11 when accepting Heath’s plea, and, therefore, we find no 
4

reason to question its validity. See United States v. Lambey, 

974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the 

record, mindful of the scope of Heath’s appellate waiver, and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part. This court 

requires that counsel inform Heath, in writing, of his right to 

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Heath requests that a petition be filed, but counsel 

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may 

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. 

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

Heath. 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