UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 99-4711

MANUEL SALANO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CR-99-40)

Submitted: November 29, 2001

Decided: December 18, 2001

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Stephen J. Weisbrod, WEISBROD & PHILLIPS, P.C., Hampton, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney,

Laura M. Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Manuel Salano seeks to appeal his conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999). Salano

pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement, in which he waived

both his right to appeal and to collaterally attack his sentence. On

appeal, Salano’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in which he asserted there were no

meritorious issues in this appeal. However, Salano’s counsel offered

several potential challenges to the validity of Salano’s waiver. 

A defendant whose plea agreement contains an express waiver of

the right to appeal may not appeal his sentence unless the waiver is

shown to be unknowing or involuntary. United States v. Brown, 232

F.3d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Marin, 961

F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). Salano’s plea agreement contained

such a waiver. Our review of the plea agreement and the record of the

plea colloquy reveal Salano’s waiver was knowing and voluntary and

that the district court thoroughly considered the surrounding circumstances, including Salano’s background, experience and conduct. See

United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir.

1995). Moreover, Salano’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum penalty, and there is no evidence that it was based on a constitutionally impermissible factor. See Marin, 961 F.2d at 496. Finally,

the sentence was not imposed pursuant to proceedings conducted in

violation of Salano’s right to counsel. See United States v. Attar, 38

F.3d 727, 732-33 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we find no basis for

challenging the validity of Salano’s waiver based on his plea colloquy

and dismiss his appeal. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

find no reversible error. However, this Court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

2 UNITED STATES v. SALANO
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, counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw

from representation, by a motion stating 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

UNITED STATES v. SALANO 3