UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5060

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JERRY JOSE DAVIS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00011-JPB-DJJ-2) 

Submitted: October 7, 2009 Decided: October 15, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

William T. Rice, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Jerry Jose Davis seeks to appeal his conviction for 

distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2006), and the resulting seventy-seven 

month sentence. On appeal, counsel filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in 

his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for review, but 

questioning whether the district court erred in calculating the 

guidelines sentencing range by awarding criminal history points 

for a 1991 bank robbery conviction. Davis was notified of his 

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

 The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal, 

asserting it is barred by Davis’s appellate waiver in the 

validly entered plea agreement. Davis’s counsel has responded 

that the motion to dismiss should be denied because the court is 

required to conduct an independent review of the record for 

meritorious issues in accordance with Anders. 

 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 the plea colloquy performed in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the waiver is both 

valid and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 

2 
151 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wessells, 936 F.2d 165, 

167-68 (4th Cir. 1991). The question of whether a defendant 

validly waived his right to appeal is a question of law that we 

review de novo. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005). 

 Our review of the record leads us to conclude that 

Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal any 

sentence within the statutory maximum. The sole issue he raises 

on appeal falls within the scope of this waiver. We therefore 

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

this portion of the appeal. 

 Although the waiver provision in the plea agreement 

precludes our review of the sentence, the waiver does not 

preclude our review of any errors in Davis’s conviction that may 

be revealed pursuant to the review required by Anders. In 

accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore deny 

the Government’s motion to dismiss in part and affirm Davis’s 

conviction. 

 This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in 

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

United States for further review. If Davis requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

3 
4 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Davis. 

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